The Supreme Court’s recent decision allowing passive euthanasia for Harish Rana, who remained in a persistent vegetative state for over 13 years, marks a significant step in India’s end-of-life jurisprudence under Article 21. It reflects the recognition that the right to die with dignity is part of the right to life. Euthanasia, aimed at relieving suffering, is classified into active and passive forms. While active euthanasia remains illegal in India, passive euthanasia is permitted under strict judicial guidelines. The debate gained national attention in the Aruna Shanbaug case, which first allowed passive euthanasia under specific conditions.Despite judicial clarity, India lacks a comprehensive statutory framework on euthanasia, relying instead on court rulings. This creates procedural uncertainty and inconsistent implementation across the country. The issue involves balancing the sanctity of life with individual dignity. The Harish Rana case highlights the urgent need for clear legislation to regulate euthanasia, ensure safeguards, and strengthen palliative care, enabling humane and dignified end-of-life decisions nationwide.
