INTRODUCTION
The word “euthanasia” is derived from the Greek words “ eu ” and “ thanatos ”, which literally mean “good death” or “easy death”. It is generally described as a mercy killing. Euthanasia refers to the purposeful acceleration of the death of a terminally ill case through active or unresistant means in order to relieve the case from unsupportable pain or suffering.
The term appears to have been used in the 17th century by Francis Bacon to denote an easy, effortless, and peaceful death, emphasizing that it was the duty and responsibility of croakers (doctors) to palliate the physical suffering of cases. The House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics in England defined euthanasia as “a deliberate intervention accepted with the express intention of ending a life to relieve intractable suffering. ”
THE CATEGORIZATION OF EUTHANASIA
Passive euthanasia occurs when medical professionals choose not to start or decide to stop treatments that keep a patient alive.
This may involve turning off life support machines, removing feeding tubes, not performing life saving surgeries, or not giving medicines that would prolong life. In such cases, the patient is allowed to die naturally because the medical treatment that sustains life is withheld or withdrawn.
Active euthanasia is when a physician intentionally ends the life of a patient who is terminally or incurably ill, usually by administering a lethal drug.
In India, this practice is illegal and is treated as criminal homicide. Most countries around the world also consider active euthanasia unlawful, although a small number of nations and jurisdictions have legalized it under strict regulations. While the direct administration of a fatal substance by a doctor is heavily restricted, many more countries permit passive euthanasia, which involves withdrawing or withholding life sustaining treatment.
THE EVOLUTION OF INDIAN PASSIVE EUTHANASIAN LAW
The legal frame for voluntary passive euthanasia is well-established in numerous authorities. The family of a terminally sick person may decide to end the life of the patient naturally by requesting that medical interventions that would only protect their life be stopped.
This covers individuals those are in a Permanent Vegetative State( PVS), an unrecoverable coma. Currently, lot of people get to a point in their health condition, where the medical community believes there’s no realistic chance of recovery. Artificial life extension is possible with ultramodern technology, although it constantly has no real benefits and can beget cases of great agony. In these situations, palliative care is constantly prioritized over measures that only delay death in order to palliate discomfort.
JUDGEMENTS SHAPING EUTHANASIA IN INDIA:
- Judicial decisions have played a crucial role in shaping the legal position of euthanasia in India. In “Maruti Shripati Dubal v. State of Maharashtra (1987),” the Bombay High Court held that the right to die could be considered a part of Article 21 of the Constitution, suggesting that individuals suffering from terminal illness or unbearable pain might have the liberty to end their lives.
- However, this view was later overturned by the Supreme Court in” Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996)”, where the Court ruled that the right to life under Article 21 does not include the right to die, emphasizing the importance of preserving human life.
- Subsequently, in the landmark judgment of” Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011)” the Supreme Court permitted passive euthanasia under strict legal and medical safeguards, particularly for patients who were unable to give consent.
- Later, in “Common Cause v. Union of India (2018)”, the Supreme Court further clarified the legal framework by recognizing the right to die with dignity as part of Article 21. The Court distinguished between active and passive euthanasia and also recognized the validity of living wills as legally enforceable advance medical directives.
HARISH RANA V. UNION OF INDIA(2026)
The case of Harish Rana v. Union of India is considered a significant development in Indian constitutional and medical jurisprudence, particularly in the context of passive euthanasia and the right to die with dignity.
The case revolved around Harish Rana, a 32 years old who had been in a Permanent Vegetative State (PVS) for 12 years following a severe brain injury caused by a tragic accident His family approached the court seeking permission to withdraw life sustaining treatment, arguing that his continued existence in such a condition violated his dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The court examined earlier landmark rulings such as “Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India” and “Common Cause v. Union of India,’ which had already recognized passive euthanasia under strict safeguards. Building upon these precedents, the court laid down a structured procedure involving medical boards, judicial oversight, and consent of close family members before permitting withdrawal of life support.
Ultimately, the court allowed passive euthanasia in Harish Rana’s case, emphasizing that the right to life includes the right to die with dignity in cases of irreversible medical conditions. This judgment is important because it demonstrates the practical implementation of previously established legal principles and reinforces the balance between medical ethics, individual autonomy, and constitutional rights.
CONCLUSION
Euthanasia continues to be a complex and evolving issue involving legal, ethical, and social considerations. While Indian courts have taken important steps by recognizing the right to die with dignity through passive euthanasia, the absence of a comprehensive legal framework has led to inconsistent implementation of this right.
As a result, medical practitioners and families often face uncertainty when making decisions of ending a life due to the lack of clear statutory guidance. Experiences from other countries indicate that a carefully regulated system, supported by strict safeguards, can effectively address concerns related to coercion, ethical conflicts, and medical oversight.
Read Our Other Article: MADHYA PRADESH’S FIRST JOHN DOE (ASHOK KUMAR) ORDER – J.P. Associates
Authors Details: Sonal Agrawal
REFERENCES
- www.livelaw.in
- HARISH RANA VS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 2238 OF 2025 IN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 18225 OF 2024
- https://jpassociates.co.in/wpcontent/uploads/2026/03/Harish_Rana_vs_Union_Of_India_on_11_March_2026.pdf