Overview The Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment permitting the withdrawal of life‑support, including artificial nutrition and hydration, for Harish Rana , who has been in a PVS for over 12 years following a head injury. By invoking the constitutional guarantee of dignity, the Court broadened the scope of Article 21 to include a "right to die with dignity". Key Developments Approval for withdrawal of life‑support for a patient in PVS on the grounds of dignity and autonomy. Recognition that merely keeping a terminally ill or brain‑dead patient alive through technology can amount to a "slow, agonising death". Affirmation of the legal validity of a living will as a tool for expressing end‑of‑life preferences. Reiteration of the Supreme Court’s earlier pronouncements in the Aruna Shanbaug case and the 1996 Gian Kaur vs State of Punjab decision. Important Facts Harish Rana suffered a head injury in 2010 and has remained in a vegetative state since. The judgment aligns with the 2018 Supreme Court Constitution Bench ruling that the right to die with dignity is a fundamental right. India currently lacks a specific statute governing euthanasia ; courts fill the legislative vacuum. The decision is expected to influence future medical ethics, palliative care protocols, and legislative drafts on end‑of‑life care. UPSC Relevance Understanding this judgment is crucial for GS‑2 (Polity) and GS‑4 (Ethics) papers. It illustrates the dynamic interpretation of Article 21 , showcases judicial activism in the absence of legislation, and raises ethical questions about autonomy, dignity, and the role of technology in healthcare. Aspirants should link the case to broader themes such as human rights, bio‑ethics, and the balance between individual liberty and state regulation. Way Forward Parliament may consider enacting a comprehensive End‑of‑Life Care Act to codify guidelines on withdrawal of treatment, living wills, and palliative care. Medical institutions should develop protocols for assessing capacity, obtaining informed consent, and counselling families. Public awareness campaigns on the purpose and legal status of living wills can empower citizens to make informed choices. Further judicial scrutiny will likely address ambiguities concerning "terminal illness," "brain death," and the role of surrogate decision‑makers.