Harish Rana, the first person to get permission for passive euthanasia in India, died at AIIMS-Delhi on Tuesday, March 24. In an official statement, AIIMS confirmed that Rana passed away at 4:10 pm at the New Delhi-based institute. He was under the care of a dedicated medical team in the Palliative Oncology Unit (IRCH) under the leadership of Dr. (Prof.) Seema Mishra, Head of the Department of Onco-Anesthesia. The Institute expressed its deepest condolences to his family and loved ones during this difficult time.
The press release said “Harish Rana passed away on March 24, 2026 at 4:10 pm at AIIMS, New Delhi. He was under the care of a dedicated team of doctors and was admitted to the Palliative Oncology Unit (IRCH) headed by Dr. (Prof.) Seema Mishra, Head of the Department, Onco-Anesthesia. AIIMS expresses its heartfelt condolences to his family and loved ones in this difficult time.”
Meanwhile, according to AIIMS sources, Harish Rana’s corneas and heart valves have been donated by his family. Earlier this month, in a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court allowed passive euthanasia for a 31-year-old Ghaziabad man, who has been in a persistent coma-like state for over a decade, observing that continuing life-saving treatment would no longer be in the best interest of the patient.
A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Vishwanathan allowed withdrawal of medically assisted nutrition and hydration (CANH) for Harish Rana, who has been in a coma-like state since he accidentally fell from a building in 2013. Passive euthanasia refers to withdrawal or withholding of life-saving treatment so that the patient dies naturally even when there is no reasonable chance of recovery.
While pronouncing the judgement, the court expressed deep sorrow and said that all the stakeholders including the patient’s family and the medical boards constituted to assess his condition were in agreement that no meaningful purpose would be served by continuing to provide aggressive medical assistance. “In the light of the unanimous decision taken by the parents/close relatives and the constituted medical boards, we are of the view that the medical treatment should not be extended further,” the court remarked. Considering the gravity of the matter, the bench said that The proceedings highlighted the impermanence of life and the intense suffering suffered by the patient over the last thirteen years.
“We have been deeply saddened throughout the hearing of this case. The issues of this case have once again highlighted the transience and instability of our lives, and also shown how quickly things can deteriorate. For the last thirteen years, the applicant’s life has been full of pain and suffering. This suffering is made all the more cruel by the fact that, unlike most of us, she was deprived of even the ability to express her suffering,” the court said in its judgment.
The bench also expressed its appreciation to the patient’s family, noting that they had remained steadfast in their care over the years. “We acknowledge with utmost respect that the parents and siblings of the applicant have stood as pillars of unwavering support. They have made every possible effort to care for him and continue to do so with unwavering dedication. We express our deep gratitude for their immense love, patience and kindness in such adverse circumstances,” the judgment said.
Addressing the family directly, the court acknowledged the emotional burden of the verdict and said that by seeking euthanasia for their son, they were allowing him to depart with dignity.
The bench said, “We understand the deep emotional weight of this judgment on Harish’s family. This judgment may seem like a capitulation, but we believe that in reality it is an act of profound compassion and courage. You are not abandoning your son. You are allowing him to depart with dignity. This reflects the depth of your selfless love and dedication towards him.”
The court also directed the All India Institute of Ayurveda (AIIMS) to facilitate transfer of the patient to its palliative care department, where the process of withdrawal of medical aid will be carried out in an orderly and dignified manner.
The bench also noted the absence of a comprehensive law on end-of-life care and urged the Central government to consider bringing a law in line with the principles laid down in Common Cause vs. Union of India (2018), in which the Supreme Court had recognized the right to die with dignity as part of the right to life under Article 21 and laid down guidelines allowing passive euthanasia.
The court said, “The long absence of a comprehensive legislation on end-of-life care has forced this Court to repeatedly intervene and fill this gap.” The court further said that a dedicated law should be made in this regard, which would bring greater clarity and certainty in such emotionally complex issues.
