Harish Rana was 18 when a fall left him with catastrophic brain injuries. For 13 years, he lay in a vegetative state, his body sustained solely through artificial support while his mind was gone. Acting on a plea by his parents, the Supreme Court on March 11 applied India’s passive euthanasia guidelines for the first time to allow withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, observing that “When the degree of bodily invasion progressively increases, and the prognosis for recovery progressively decreases, there arises a certain point when the State’s absolute interest in preserving life must become subservient to the dignity of the individual...” Rana died on Tuesday.

Rana’s case is the latest chapter in a long and uneven legal journey. In Maruti S Dubal v. State of Maharashtra (1987) and P Rathinam v. Union of India (1994), the Supreme Court first entertained the notion that the Right to Life under Article 21 included a Right to Die, striking down Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalised attempted suicide. But in 1996, a five-judge bench in Gian Kaur v State of Punjab reversed course. The Court........

© hindustantimes