New Delhi: The Supreme Court has clarified the distinction between active euthanasia and passive euthanasia, stating that greater clarity is necessary as significant confusion still exists regarding the issue. The court made these observations while hearing a petition related to the case of Harish Rana, which has become a landmark case in discussions on passive euthanasia in India.
According to the court, active euthanasia involves a positive act that directly causes or hastens a person’s death, such as administering poison or a lethal injection. In contrast, passive euthanasia refers to withdrawing or withholding life-sustaining medical treatment and allowing death to occur naturally due to the patient’s illness.
The court explained that while active euthanasia involves performing an act, passive euthanasia essentially involves refraining from continuing artificial life-support. However, the judges also pointed out that this distinction cannot always be explained in overly simple terms, as certain medical decisions—such as turning off a ventilator or removing a feeding tube—may appear to involve active steps.
The bench observed that euthanasia should not be categorized solely based on the method used. Instead, it is important to examine whether death results from a new external act or from the patient’s underlying illness after life-sustaining treatment is withdrawn. If death occurs due to a new external act, such as injecting poison, it would be considered active euthanasia. Passive euthanasia, on the other hand, allows death to occur naturally by discontinuing artificially sustained life.
During the proceedings, the Supreme Court also praised Malayali advocate Rashmi Nandakumar for her effective presentation of the case. She appeared on behalf of Harish Rana’s father, who had filed the petition seeking permission for passive euthanasia.
In the judgment, Justice K.V. Viswanathan specifically mentioned the lawyer’s efforts in presenting the case and noted that she had successfully included several important judgments from courts in India and other countries to support the petition.
The court also commended the approach taken by Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, who represented the Central government, appreciating the sensitivity shown in addressing the circumstances of the case.
Advocate Rashmi Nandakumar later said she felt fortunate that the Supreme Court had approached Harish Rana’s situation with compassion, care and respect.
The case is significant because it is reportedly the first time that a patient or the patient’s family has approached the Supreme Court directly regarding passive euthanasia.
Earlier, the Delhi High Court had rejected the plea seeking permission for passive euthanasia for Harish Rana. An appeal against that order was also dismissed by the Supreme Court in 2024. At that time, the then Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud observed that Harish was not dependent on a ventilator or any other artificial life-support system.
However, the court had allowed the petitioner the liberty to approach it again if there was a change in circumstances. Following this, a revised application was filed before the Supreme Court through advocate Rashmi Nandakumar, leading to the latest observations and clarification by the court.
The judgment is expected to contribute to clearer legal understanding and debate in India regarding the complex ethical and legal questions surrounding euthanasia.
