INTRODUCTION
Suppose there is a body, but the mind is in endless silence. Aruna Shanbaug spent 42 years in this frozen state of being since a violent attack rendered her in a persistent vegetative state (PVS). Harish Rana experienced the same pitiless reality during 13 years after a tragic fall. In the case of the long suffering of Aruna and the mercy of Harish which, as per the Indian law, was sanctioned by the court, the Indian law struggled with one great question: when is the saving of the biological life a denial of human dignity? The radical ruling made in Harish Rana v. by the Supreme Court. It was eventually responded to by the Union of India (2026), allowing passive euthanasia, the first court-approved case in India, in another moderate but decisive step towards the hypothetical paradigm set in Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011).
In its essence it is an unanswered ethical question, who makes the final decision when the pain should be removed- the patient, family, doctors or the courts?
FACTUAL MATRIX: HARISH RANA
On March 15, 2013, when Harish Rana,1 aged 22, was doing some construction work under normal conditions in Nagpur, Maharashtra, he fell off a building with a catastrophic fall. The accident left him in a coma and although he was at first treated aggressively in the local hospitals, he did not come out of the coma. By mid-2014, medical examinations revealed that Harish recovered persistent vegetative state (PVS) or awake without awareness, without any voluntary communication or cognitive processing and without purposeful movement. His brainstem reflexes kept him alive with carrying out basic functions such as breathing and heart beating, but the higher brain activity remained permanently lacking.
The hospital in Nagpur, the Deendayal Memorial Hospital, in which he was on care kept him on mechanical ventilation, nasogastric tube feeding and simple supportive care. The medical expenses were more than 50,000 per month, which consumed the moderate savings of the family. Emotional pressure was building. The mother of Harish stated that he is a prisoner in his own body with his eyes open but empty, answering no calls of ‘beta’ or touching. In 2015, when the family could no longer bear witness to long-term pain and could no longer fund their care, they initially appealed to the Nagpur District Court to be allowed to end life support on the basis of the still developing right to die with dignity.
The issue was passed on to a two-judge medical board according to the Aruna Shanbaug instructions in the district court that validated PVS but advised further treatment due to faint recovery prospects. Appeals went around Bombay High Court (2018) set aside to be re-examined afresh; a second board (2020) repeated PVS permanence. The situation of Harish worsened, frequent infections, muscle wasting, bed sores, but the court was restrained. The family in 2024 Supreme Court SLP referred to revised neuroimaging (fMRI which demonstrated no cortical activity) and statements by neurologists that there was no rehabilitation potential.
A reconstituted three-member medical board found unequivocally on January 14, 2026: Harish Rana passed all Shanbaug criteria of PVS (greater than 1 year duration, no awareness, and was an ethical withdrawal). There was no advance directive, but there was a unanimous agreement in the family. Passive euthanasia was authorized by the Supreme Court on March 10, 2026 using its Shanbaug derived parens patriae jurisdiction to withdraw ventilation and feeding tubes after 48 hours observation. Therefore, Harish Rana died on the 18th of March, 2026, 13 years and five days after the accident.
ARUNA SHANBAUG AS PRECEDENT FRAMEWORK
The Harish Rana case cannot be perceived in isolation, it is a direct output of the constitutional structure that was built in Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India,2 the landmark case on euthanasia. Mumbai nurse Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug, who was raped and strangled in 1973, and spent the next 42 years in PVS until she naturally died in 2015. A petition filed by Pinki Virani agreed to passive euthanasia but the Supreme Court declined due to lack of sufficient evidence on the irreversibility of PVS. However, in obiter of permanence, a two-judge bench (Cyriac Joseph, Markandey Katju, JJ.) issued an extensive set of guidelines putting into practice the right to die with dignity in Article 21.
Shanbaug divided euthanasia into passive and active. Passive euthanasia involves denying or withdrawing artificial life support to patients who are in PVS (at least 1 year of coma without any awareness). Procedure requirements: (1) certification by the medical board consisting of two judges; (2) High Court consent; (3) primacy with directives against (living wills); (4) family consent in absence of it.
More importantly, Shanbaug opposed active euthanasia, or the use of lethal drugs, as a failure to comply with the sanctity-of-life requirement of Article 21, which she believed would cause slippery slopes and abuse. The article 21 stood as the doctrinal innovation that made Shanbaug present dignity in autonomy: the right to live with human dignity to a dignified procedure of death. The still-existing, legislatively supported the concept of living wills,3 but they were not implemented: there was no central registry, the authentication itself was unspecified, there were judicial bottlenecks.
Rana had met all the thresholds, unlike the clear evidence of dismissal down used in the case of Shanbaug with evidence of PVS being conclusive, boards being iterative, and family unanimity. In order to fill in the gaps the Court referred to the principle of parens patriae by stating: Thirteen years of vegetative life is an insult to dignity greater than a dignified death. However, according to the further analysis, Rana discloses the lines of faults in Shanbaug: the procedural rigidity, the gap of ethics, and the necessity of reforms.
CORE ANALYSIS: RANA’S LEGAL INNOVATIONS
A. From Guidelines to Execution
Where Shanbaug failed in terms of evidentiary infirmities, Rana uses the intensive, repetitive medical confirmation. Irefutable PVS was converged on by three boards over 11 years: district (2015), state (2020), and national (2026): absence of cortical EEG, no fMRI activation, ethical withdrawal consensus. Testing by the High Court: thorough (11 years), awareness (none), board certification (unanimous), and procedural propriety (the High Court oversight). Rana innovates procedurally. Shanbaug had a vision of High Court gatekeeping; Rana decentralizes through district initiation but puts up an apex questioning on precedent-setting. Justices also pointed to the change in medical opinion, incorporating medical innovations, including more complex neuroimaging techniques, since 2011. This is an indication of judicial flexibility and judicial contemplation of current developments that medical euthanasia is eligible to follow the paths of, not to stand still. Rana substantively foundations passive euthanasia on the foundation of Article 21 of the Bedrock. It is a distinction between life and meaningful life under which the bench appeals to Common Cause: To extend vegetative life is an affront to dignity. The withdrawal of ventilators by Day 1 and the NG tube removal on Day 3 that actually occurs to Rana is a model of the procedure that Shanbaug will perform to scrutinize the sanctity boundaries. However, implementation brings about frictions: there was no living will to be practiced leading to unwelcome extension of suffering.
B. The Division of Passive-Active Euthanasia
The Supreme Court has put a strict line on passive euthanasia even when granting Harish Rana mercy. This caution of the law has been put as its background and the active risks of the activity, as well as its deep demerits, which condition the further and deeper establishment. To begin with, there is coercion and abuse. Unprotected patients such as poor, old, and disabled ones, endure unseen forces by tight-fisted families or overstretched hospitals. This might come disguised as economic euthanasia where consent is given as an obligate to dump bills of 50,000 every month. Firstly, It is irreversible when it comes to diagnostic errors. A good thing is PVS diagnosis but this is not foolproof. There are some rare recoveries after a prolonged coma; Terri Schiavo (USA, 2005)4 twitched in 15 years after losing consciousness. There is no turning back in the active methods, it is all over with death. Secondly, there are cultural-religious fault lines that are broken. Karma and divine timing of Hinduism and sanctity of life of Christianity intersect on the Indian plural tapestry. These beliefs dislike active euthanasia-hasty death by people which may lead to social trouble in the country.5 Thirdly, slippery slope is a frightener to judges. Netherlands started the terminal cancer (2002); nowadays, it covers psychiatric cases, dementia.6 India anxieties of the same: of the PVS to depression, to unproductive aged. Fourth, Hippocratic infidelity destroys trust. Physicians take the oath of primum non nocere (first, do no harm). Lethal injections reinstate healers as murders, like Nazi T4 and his mercy killings. This change cannot support already shaky public confidence in the medicine even after the COVID. Rana therefore maintains the firewall that was set by Shanbaug: that being respectful of life (nature takes its course) and active in its overthrow. However, this dualism is irritating: why do we subject suffering to slow dying when there is a rapid way to do it elsewhere?
C. “Who Decides?” Implementation Gaps
The victory of Rana displays the deadly weakness of Shanbaug no one makes decisions. Without living wills, the family is taken to court indefinitely- the relatives of Rana spent 11 years in three courts. This should be averted by living wills as stated in Post-Common Cause (2018),7 but implementation ends disastrously. India has no functioning regime of advance directives. Authentication requires the presence of notary, gazette and two witnesses, something too cumbersome to be done by the working family of Harish. The 2020 panel in Nagpur took six months to provide, a bottleneck (mandated by Shanbaug) by medical boards at the levels of the district. Judicial overload adds up: 50 million pending cases translate into PVS pleas back of murders. There is no reply to “Who decides”? Patients can’t (comatose). Families beg. It is the contempt that doctors are afraid of (MCI ethics). Rana reveals this paralysis: even boards of every type had to be SC imprimatur. The ethical core autonomy evaporates. Rana asserts the principle of dignity but procedural quicksand refutes it. There are not just implementation gaps which defer mercy, but rather kill it.
CRITIQUE & REFORM
A. What Rana Achieved
Harish Rana is an achievement of doctrinal milestone, which is the operationalization of passive euthanasia following 15 years of judicial slumber. To begin with, it confirms the broad canopy of Article 21: now, dignity certainly has taken in the dignified death, not biological survival. The sharp accomplishment of the Court, staged withdrawal during a period of 72 hours, is a template of its national type, evoking no anxieties in the minds that Shanbaug was obiter. Second, Rana brings about medical-judicial synergy. Iterative boards (2015-2026) were temporarily advanced with fMRI, EEG, which did not exist in 2011, and raised the PVS certification to scientific certitude. Third, Rana idealizes the parenthood. Instead of prudent fiat of a father, the bench followed family consensus, medical unanimity, and ethical consensus modelling subtle balancing in as opposed to absolutist. It provides precedent to the lower courts, hope to the families, clarity to the doctors.
B. What Rana Reveals
But the truth of Rana as reflected in his mirror is uncomposed. Firstly paralysis of the living will. India has guidelines, but no infrastructure, Post-Common Cause (2018). There is no national registry, authentication (notary + gazette) discourages masses of illiterates. Rana and his family could not even think of an advance directive when 50000 rupee per month would stop their representation.
This 11-year legal fiasco reveals procedural inhumanity: the safeguards of jurisdiction, such as medical boards, nods of the High Court and Supreme Court, were mazes of mercy. Rana supports the active euthanasia prohibition, prefers 10-14 days starvation even in painless options around the world, shackled by ahimsa and vices such as coercion fears, errors, culture, slippery slopes, and ethics-but India needs to do better by 2.5 million PVS patients. Inequality breeds as well: the wealthy will get ICUs and fast tracks, and the poor will remain on the public ward with perpetual SLPs, and dignity will become the privilege of the rich and the Article 21 autonomy will be compromised.
C. Legislative Recommendations
The exceptions of the judicial stopgap are adequate in the case of outliers; the change of systems requires law. First, the digital execution of the proposal. The Advance Directives Act, 2026: national digital registry (Aadhaar-linked): it is easier to execute content (video + witness) and the district authenticates it within 48 hours. There are protocols exhibited in mandate hospitals. Second, the lean up of the medical boards: permanent district panels (neurologist + ethicist), 30-day certification, binding except when SC appealed. Consensus cases should not go through the High Courts. Third, establish standardized operating procedures (SOPs): for institutionalised passive euthanasia. Withdrawal protocol: (Day 1 ventilator and hydration Day 3). Fourth, start euthanasia debate: appoint committee with specific expertise to parliament, have consultations with the citizens in favor of demerits over suffering. Fifth, capacity-building: PVS training required by MCI, hubs of nationwide fMRI, cells of legal aid when making EOL petitions. Rana is shown to be the judiciary that is ahead in a lagging legislature. But the article 21 imperative of dignity requires Parliament to do it – otherwise more patients like Harish Rana will be forced to suffer for years in a legal stasis, just like Aruna Shanbaug.
CONCLUSION
Harish Rana would solve the 13 years tortures of one family but sparked off a greater euthanasia accounting of India. Since Aruna Shanbaug in her vigil of 42 years to Rana in his act of mercy, the Supreme court has made the leap on the path of formulating theory into mercy. Passive euthanasia is now established not by the decision of the judges, but by Article 21 bind. Still the way of Rana three boards three courts infinite affidavits bring charges against a regime in which martyrdom is required of mercy. It makes Shanbaug doable, scaring off threats of disintegration in the society. But like a red-letter-book; living wills are on paper only; and procedural mazes squeeze the poor; and the taboo of active euthanasia still lingers in the public eye of visible pain. Who decides? Nobody. As patients are unable to, families are torn to pieces, physicians cower and courts are jammed. Rana’s story is not an end but a beginning. Legislative inertia is a threat to judicial leadership; buying time is a virtue of good leadership. Parliament is required to install registries, expedited boards, standardized procedures – the shift toward the rights to die with dignity is accomplished. Harish Rana’s legacy, like Shanbaug’s shade, protects future families now. In 2026, India picked survival over dignity: freedom over paralysis, mercy over endless pain.
*****
Footnotes
1. Harish Rana v. Union of India, (2026) SCC [Online] (SC).
2. Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India, 4 SCC 454 (2011).
3. Common Cause (A Regd. Soc’y) v. Union of India, 5 SCC 1 (2018).
4. Schindler v. Schiavo, 780 So. 2d 176 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001).
5. Graham Grove et al., Perspectives of Major World Religions Regarding Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide: A Comparative Analysis, 61 J. Religion & Health 4758 (2022), PMCID: PMC9569313.
6. CARE, Euthanasia Deaths Rise Sharply in the Netherlands (Apr. 21, 2025), https://care.org.uk/news/2025/04/euthanasia-deaths-rise-sharply-in-the-netherlands.
7. Common Cause (A Regd. Soc’y) v. Union of India, 5 SCC 1 (2018).