The Supreme Court, in a landmark judgment, authorised the withdrawal of life‑sustaining treatment for 34‑year‑old Harish Rana , who has been in a vegetative state since a 2012 fall. This is the first instance of passive euthanasia after the 2018 recognition of the right to die with dignity . Key Developments The bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan heard the case and concluded that continued artificial nutrition, specifically CAN , offered no therapeutic benefit. Two independent medical boards confirmed the irreversibility of Harish's condition. The judgment was delivered in a miscellaneous application filed by the father, following an earlier 2024 petition for passive euthanasia that was rejected. The case is recorded as SLP(C) No. 18225/2024 under Harish Rana vs Union of India (MA 2238/2025). Important Facts Harish fell from a building in 2012, sustaining severe brain injury. For 13 years he remained in a vegetative state, dependent entirely on artificial nutrition and hydration. The Supreme Court emphasized that prolonging biological life without any prospect of recovery contravenes the principle of dignity enshrined in Article 21. Both justices highlighted the unwavering support of Harish’s parents and siblings, describing abandonment as a greater tragedy than death. Justice Pardiwala’s judgment blended legal reasoning with moral compassion, noting that the decision rests “in a space of love, loss, medicine and mercy.” UPSC Relevance Illustrates the evolving interpretation of Article 21 and its impact on health‑care law. Demonstrates the procedural requirements for passive euthanasia: a petition, two medical board opinions, and compliance with the Common Cause judgment . Highlights the role of the Supreme Court in balancing individual rights with ethical considerations. Offers a case study for ethics (GS4) on end‑of‑life decisions, patient autonomy, and the moral duties of caregivers. Way Forward Law‑makers may consider codifying clear statutory procedures for passive euthanasia to reduce litigation delays. Medical institutions should develop protocols for assessing irreversible conditions and counselling families. For UPSC aspirants, the case underscores the need to integrate constitutional jurisprudence, medical ethics, and social policy while answering questions on health‑care reforms and human rights.