Supreme Court and Passive Euthanasia in India: What the Reserved Verdict Could Mean

A life frozen since 2013

For more than a decade, a man has existed in a persistent vegetative state, dependent entirely on medical machines to keep his body functioning. He has not regained consciousness since 2013. His family has approached the Supreme Court seeking permission to withdraw life support, arguing that continued artificial sustenance serves no therapeutic purpose and prolongs suffering without hope of recovery.

This plea reached a Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra. After detailed hearings, the Court reserved its verdict. The case has revived a complex conversation on passive euthanasia in India, medical ethics, and the constitutional meaning of life under Article 21.

During the hearing, the bench made a poignant observation. CJI Surya Kant remarked, “We are mortals… we cannot decide someone’s life.” The statement reflected judicial caution in a matter where law, medicine, and morality intersect in deeply uncomfortable ways.

What the bench grappled with in open court

The judges were not merely deciding a medical request. They were navigating questions that go to the heart of constitutional philosophy. The Court had to balance three competing considerations:

• The sanctity of life as a constitutional value.

• The dignity of an individual who may never recover consciousness.

• The role of the State in regulating end of life medical decisions.

The bench repeatedly stressed that courts cannot casually permit withdrawal of life support. At the same time, it acknowledged that passive euthanasia in India already exists in limited form under earlier rulings, provided strict safeguards are followed.

Lawyers representing the family argued that the patient had been in a vegetative state for years with no signs of improvement. Medical experts submitted reports indicating minimal neurological activity. The government, while not opposing the plea outright, urged the Court to lay down clear guidelines to prevent misuse of passive euthanasia in India.

How passive euthanasia in India reached this moment

The debate did not begin with this case. India’s journey on passive euthanasia has been gradual and cautious.

In 2011, in the Aruna Shanbaug case, the Supreme Court allowed passive euthanasia in principle but required High Court approval in every case. That framework was later reconsidered in 2018 in the Common Cause judgment, where a Constitution Bench recognized the right to die with dignity as part of Article 21. The Court permitted living wills and set out a more structured process for passive euthanasia in India.

Despite these rulings, real life cases continue to reach the Supreme Court because families, hospitals, and doctors remain uncertain about procedures. Many fear legal consequences if they withdraw life support without explicit judicial permission. This has made passive euthanasia in India more of a legal process than a purely medical one.

The present case is significant because it tests how flexible or rigid the existing framework will be in practice.

What ‘persistent vegetative state’ actually means

A persistent vegetative state is not the same as coma. A patient may breathe independently, have sleep wake cycles, and show basic reflexes. However, there is no awareness of self or surroundings.

Doctors describe it as a condition where biological life continues but conscious life has effectively ended. This distinction is central to debates on passive euthanasia in India.

Families often struggle emotionally in such situations. They must decide whether to continue treatment that keeps the body alive or accept that recovery is unlikely. The law tries to ensure that such decisions are not taken lightly or for financial convenience.

Article 21 and the meaning of life

At the core of the case lies Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. Over decades, the Supreme Court has interpreted this right expansively to include:

• Right to live with dignity.

• Right to privacy.

• Right to bodily autonomy.

• Right to die with dignity.

Passive euthanasia in India is seen as an extension of this constitutional principle. If the right to life includes dignity, then forcing medical treatment on a person who has no prospect of recovery may violate that dignity.

However, the Court has always been careful to distinguish between passive euthanasia in India and active euthanasia, which remains illegal. Passive euthanasia involves withholding or withdrawing life sustaining treatment. Active euthanasia involves administering drugs to cause death, which the law does not permit.

The reserved verdict is expected to clarify how far Article 21 protects decisions to end medical intervention.

Safeguards that shape passive euthanasia in India

The existing legal framework requires multiple layers of protection before life support can be withdrawn. Typically, this includes:

• Assessment by treating doctors.

• Review by a hospital ethics committee.

• Confirmation that the patient’s condition is irreversible.

• In some cases, judicial oversight.

These safeguards aim to prevent misuse of passive euthanasia in India for inheritance disputes, medical negligence cover ups, or family pressure. The Court has consistently emphasized that such decisions must be driven by medical reality rather than convenience or cost.

In the present case, the bench examined whether these safeguards were properly followed and whether further clarification was needed.

Families caught between hope and law

For families, cases like this are emotionally exhausting. They must watch a loved one lie unresponsive for years while navigating complex legal procedures. Many relatives describe a sense of prolonged grief, unable to fully mourn while machines keep the body alive.

Passive euthanasia in India is not merely a legal issue for them. It is deeply personal. Some families believe that allowing natural death is more compassionate than indefinite medical intervention. Others fear that withdrawing support is morally wrong.

The Court’s eventual ruling will affect not just this family but many others facing similar dilemmas across the country.

Doctors and hospitals in a legal grey zone

Medical professionals often find themselves trapped between ethical judgment and legal risk. Doctors may believe that continuing treatment is futile but hesitate to act without clear legal backing.

Passive euthanasia in India places them in a difficult position. If they withdraw life support and a court later disagrees, they could face criminal charges. If they refuse to withdraw support, families may accuse them of prolonging suffering.

The pending verdict may offer clearer guidance, reducing uncertainty for hospitals and clinicians.

Why this case matters beyond one patient

Although this petition concerns a single individual, its implications are far broader. The decision could shape how passive euthanasia in India is practiced in everyday hospital settings.

Key questions before the Court include:

• Should courts be involved in every case of life support withdrawal?

• Can families and doctors make these decisions without judicial approval?

• How should living wills be treated when patients are incapacitated?

The answers will influence medical policy, hospital protocols, and family decision making for years to come.

Between compassion and caution

Throughout the hearing, the bench displayed both empathy and restraint. The remark “We are mortals… we cannot decide someone’s life” captured this tension.

The judges appeared aware that endorsing passive euthanasia in India too easily could open the door to abuse. At the same time, they recognized that denying it in all cases could amount to cruel prolongation of suffering.

This balance between compassion and caution defines the Indian approach to end-of-life law.

What the reserved verdict may clarify

When the judgment is delivered, it is likely to address several issues:

• Whether existing guidelines on passive euthanasia in India need modification.

• Whether High Court approval should remain mandatory in all cases.

• How to treat patients who have been in a vegetative state for many years.

• The role of family consent versus medical assessment.

Whatever the outcome, the decision will further shape constitutional understanding of life, dignity, and autonomy.

A conversation India cannot avoid

As medical technology advances, more patients can be kept alive even when recovery is impossible. This makes passive euthanasia in India not just a legal debate but a social and ethical one.

The Supreme Court’s reserved verdict is therefore not merely about one man on life support. It is about how India defines humane treatment at the edge of life itself.

The Court now holds that responsibility in its hands.