The  Supreme Court bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan considered a heartbreaking  AIIMS medical report on a 32-year-old man who has been in a vegetative state for the past 12 years after falling from a building. 

The court was hearing a plea filed by his father seeking permission for passive euthanasia to end his son’s prolonged suffering.

After examining the report prepared by the secondary medical board, the bench asked the lawyers to carefully review the document before the court passes its final order. The judges also fixed January 13 for a personal interaction with the man’s parents.

The court is considering the case under the Supreme Court’s 2018 Constitution Bench ruling in Common Cause, which was further clarified by an order passed in January 2023. Under these guidelines, the court can allow passive euthanasia only after receiving opinions from both a primary medical board and a secondary medical board.

Facts:

An initial medical board had found that the patient had almost no chance of recovery. He is dependent on a tracheostomy tube to breathe and a gastrostomy tube for nutrition, and photographs placed before the court showed severe bed sores.

The Supreme Court then directed AIIMS to constitute a second medical board. Its report was submitted recently. Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati informed the court about the report, after which Justice J.B. Pardiwala described it as a “sad report” and observed that the young man’s existence had become unbearable.

As the report had not yet been shared with the petitioner’s counsel, Advocate Rashmi Nandakumar, or with ASG Bhati, the bench ordered that copies be provided to them immediately. The court said:

“We have reached a stage wherein we will have to take a final call. So your thorough assistance will be required. We will ask the registry to provide you with one copy of the report. Study the report. Ms. Bhati and Ms. Rashmi you will have to assist us. It’s a very sad report and it will be a big challenge for us also but we can’t keep the boy like this for all time to come.”

ASG Bhati emphasised that the family must be consulted before any final decision is taken. Taking note of the seriousness of the matter, the court insisted that such consultation should be done through in-person interaction and not virtually.

The formal order stated:

 "In pursuance of our last order dated 11 December, a secondary medical board was constituted by the AIIMS, New Delhi. The team of doctors medically examined the patient, and a report has been forwarded on 16 December 2025. The report consists of the medical history, general examination, neurological examination and other observations made and diagnostic criteria. We direct the Registry to provide each copy to Ms Rashmi and Ms Aishwarya Bhati, learned ASG. We request them to look into the report and study the same and assist us in the report.

We request them to jointly speak to the parents and other family members of Harish Rana and give us a report in that regard. We would also like to personally speak to the parents of Harish Rana. For this purpose, we request them to be personally remain present before us on 13 January at 3 pm in the Committee room. We request both counsels to keep their submissions in writing so that we can proceed with the passing of the final order. Let a copy of the primary board also be furnished to the counsels."

The father’s application brings back a plea that the Supreme Court had earlier rejected in 2024. However, at that time, the court had directed the Uttar Pradesh government to bear the cost of the patient’s care.

Later, the father filed a miscellaneous application, pointing out that his son’s condition had worsened and that he had become completely unresponsive.

Case Details: HARISH RANA Vs UNION OF INDIA|MA 2238/2025 in SLP(C) No. 18225/2024