Overview On January 15, 2026 , the Supreme Court reserved its judgment on a plea filed by the family of Harish Rana , a 31-year-old man, seeking permission to withdraw life-sustaining treatment. The case brings to the forefront complex ethical and legal questions surrounding end-of-life care and the right to die with dignity. Key Developments Court Proceedings A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan heard arguments from both the Union government, represented by Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati , and the family of Mr. Rana , represented by Advocate Rashmi Nandakumar . The court focused on ensuring the family's decision was well-considered and consistent. Family's Plea Mr. Rana's parents and siblings expressed their desire to end his suffering, stating that continued medical treatment was not improving his condition. They emphasized the emotional toll and the lack of quality of life for Mr. Rana , who has been bedridden since 2013 . Medical Opinion Reports from medical boards indicated that Mr. Rana would likely remain in a permanent vegetative state (PVS) indefinitely. Doctors suggested discontinuing treatment and allowing "nature to take its own course". Terminology Debate Advocate Rashmi Nandakumar urged the court to avoid the term 'passive euthanasia' and instead use 'withdrawing/withholding life-sustaining treatment' in its judgment, a point the judges had already considered. Background Harish Rana sustained severe head injuries and 100% quadriplegic disability after falling from the fourth floor of his accommodation in 2013 while a student at Panjab University . He has been bedridden and dependent on artificial life support for over 13 years . Ethical and Legal Considerations Right to Die: The case raises questions about an individual's right to a dignified death and the legal framework surrounding end-of-life decisions. Patient Autonomy: Balancing the patient's (or family's) wishes with medical advice and societal values is a critical aspect. Medical Ethics: The role of medical professionals in providing objective assessments and guidance in such sensitive cases is paramount. Guardianship and Decision-Making: The court's emphasis on a "consistent and well-considered" decision highlights the importance of responsible guardianship. UPSC Relevance This case is relevant to GS2 (Social Justice, Health) and GS4 (Ethics) . It touches upon issues of vulnerable sections of the population, ethical dilemmas in healthcare, and the role of the judiciary in safeguarding fundamental rights. Understanding the nuances of this case can aid in answering questions related to bioethics, end-of-life care, and the legal framework surrounding medical decisions. Key Terms Permanent Vegetative State (PVS): A chronic state of impaired consciousness where the patient is unresponsive to external stimuli. Passive Euthanasia: Withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment to allow a natural death. Life-Sustaining Treatment: Medical interventions that maintain bodily functions, such as ventilation, feeding tubes, and medication. Quadriplegia: Paralysis affecting all four limbs.