Parties and roles: Harish Rana is the appellant/applicant who initiated or carried the matter to the Supreme Court. Union of India & Ors. is the respondent opposing the relief or defending the challenged action, decision, law or proceeding. The labels “plaintiff” and “defendant” are generally not used here because this is an appellate, special or Supreme Court proceeding. Harish Rana remained in an irreversible vegetative condition for years, dependent on clinically assisted nutrition and hydration through a feeding tube. His family sought a medically supervised end to treatment that no longer offered therapeutic benefit, while ensuring he was not abandoned or subjected to pain. The case required the Court to apply and streamline Common Cause safeguards to a patient unable to decide for himself and to determine whether tube-delivered nutrition is medical treatment capable of lawful withdrawal. Procedural setting: 2013: Harish Rana suffered severe brain injury and entered a prolonged vegetative state. | 2018: Common Cause recognised passive euthanasia and advance directives. | 2024-2025: Litigation and court-constituted medical boards assessed his irreversible condition. | 11 Mar 2026: Withdrawal of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration was permitted with palliative care. The central problem before the Court was is clinically assisted nutrition and hydration medical treatment that may be withdrawn? How should the best-interests standard operate for an incompetent patient? What practical changes are needed to the Common Cause process? The controversy was considered in the framework of Common Cause passive-euthanasia framework; relevant medical-professional and hospital regulations, together with Constitution art.21; arts.32 and 142. The wider importance of the case lies in right to die with dignity; best interests; passive euthanasia; medical futility; informed family participation; palliative care.

The family and medical opinions supported withdrawal in Harish's best interests because the condition was irreversible and treatment futile. The legal framework required strict safeguards, independent medical assessment, family consultation and a transition to palliative care to protect life and prevent abuse. Competing positions in context: Harish Rana's position: as the appellant/applicant, Harish Rana sought the relief indicated by the questions of law and challenged the opposing action or interpretation. The claim was that the Court should apply the governing provisions consistently with Right to die with dignity; best interests; passive euthanasia; medical futility; informed family participation; palliative care. Union of India & Ors.'s position: as respondent, Union of India & Ors. resisted that relief, defended the impugned measure or decision, or proposed a narrower interpretation of the Court's power and the applicable law. The Court therefore had to test these submissions against Common Cause passive-euthanasia framework; relevant medical-professional and hospital regulations and Constitution art.21; arts.32 and 142, the record of the proceedings and binding precedent. This summary states the principal controversy in accessible language; the official judgment remains authoritative for counsel-specific submissions and paragraph references.

The Court permitted withdrawal of treatment, including clinically assisted nutrition and hydration, based on unanimous medical assessment and the patient's best interests. It required admission to palliative care and an end-of-life plan preserving comfort and dignity. The judgment clarified that withdrawal is allowing the underlying condition to take its course, not abandonment, streamlined medical-board and next-of-kin procedures, and urged comprehensive legislation. Effect of the decision: the ruling explains or applies Right to die with dignity; best interests; passive euthanasia; medical futility; informed family participation; palliative care and binds the parties to the operative directions made in M.A. No. 2238/2025 in SLP(C) No. 18225/2024. It also guides lower courts and public authorities on materially similar questions under Common Cause passive-euthanasia framework; relevant medical-professional and hospital regulations. Scope and caution: only the ratio decidendi and operative directions of the signed judgment are binding; summaries should not be treated as substitutes for the judgment, separate opinions, later review orders or subsequent precedent.

Common Cause passive-euthanasia framework; relevant medical-professional and hospital regulations

Constitution art.21; arts.32 and 142

Right to die with dignity; best interests; passive euthanasia; medical futility; informed family participation; palliative care