The Supreme Court on Wednesday (May 13, 2026) expressed appreciation for the family of Harish Rana, the first person in India to be permitted withdrawal of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration (CANH), for their “selfless” decision to donate his corneas and heart valves.

A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan said such “generosity” would ensure that Rana’s legacy lives on through the lives he saves.

“Harish left his mortal world on his own terms, surrounded by love and compassion. Even in the face of their own loss, his family chose generosity through the selfless decision to donate his corneas and heart valves. His life continues in others. His legacy will live on in the lives of those he saved,” the Bench said.

Rana had sustained severe head injuries and suffered 100% quadriplegic disability after falling from the fourth floor of his paying guest accommodation while he was a student at Panjab University in 2013.

In a first-of-its-kind judicial order in India, the Supreme Court on March 11 had held that withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment to avoid the artificial prolongation of the dying process and the accompanying pain would uphold a patient’s dignity and bodily integrity. Accordingly, the court had directed All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Delhi, to shift Rana from his residence in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh to its palliative care centre.

Subsequently, Rana passed away at 4.10 p.m. on March 24 at the palliative care unit of the Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Institute Rotary Cancer Hospital at AIIMS, Delhi.

The judges acknowledged that the litigation had imparted profound lessons to the court as well, and said it served as a poignant reminder that prolonging life in a manner a person would not choose for themselves amounts to an affront to constitutional guarantees of dignity and autonomy.

‘Medicine has its limits’

“In Harish’s final moments, he experienced care, comfort, and respect. His peaceful passing away, free from tubes and machines, reflects autonomy and dignity in both life and death. It also serves as a reminder that medicine has its limits. Allowing someone to pass on their own terms and alleviating their suffering affirms their dignity and honours their ultimate control over their body and mind,” the Bench said.

The judges also expressed gratitude to the entire medical team and nursing staff at AIIMS, Delhi, for ensuring that Rana suffered the least and “passed away peacefully”. The court also noted its appreciation for the able assistance rendered by Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Union government, and advocate Rashmi Nandakumar, appearing for Mr. Rana and his parents.

The court, however, directed Ms. Bhati to file a compliance affidavit regarding the directions issued in its March 11 judgment and posted the matter for hearing in July. In its ruling, the court had directed Chief Medical Officers in all districts to constitute panels of registered medical practitioners to serve as secondary medical boards for examining applications seeking withdrawal of life support. It had also urged the Centre to consider enacting a specific legislation laying down the procedure for withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment.

The court had distinguished active euthanasia as a “positive overt act, such as the administration of a lethal injection, designed to directly cause or accelerate death” from “passive euthanasia”, now termed “withdrawal of life support”, which it described as the cessation of futile medical treatment.

“The withholding of medical treatment merely allows the natural path of life to run its inevitable course and therefore cannot be termed as the extinguishment of life or an unnatural termination of life. Consequently, the same is held not to fall foul of Article 21 (right to life and dignity),” the court had reasoned.

‘Not abandonment’

The judges had also cautioned that withholding of life-sustaining interventions should not be a “single act” nor an “act of abandonment” of unconscious or incompetent patients in a persistent vegetative state.

The court had noted that Rana’s next of kin, as well as the medical boards constituted to evaluate his condition, had unanimously concluded that continuation of CANH and medical treatment would serve no purpose and that withdrawal would be in his best interest.

“Ordinarily, it would not require an intervention of this court after the medical boards’ opinion, but since it is the first such case, the court has decided to delve further into the issue,” the Bench had said.