Published On: 14th August 2026
Authored By: Urmila Biswas
Department of Law, University of Calcutta (Hazra Campus)
ABSTRACT
Passive euthanasia has emerged as one of the most significant constitutional and ethical issues in Indian Jurisprudence. It raises several serious questions relating to the sanctity of life, patient autonomy, and, most importantly, the right to die with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. This Article will discuss the concept of euthanasia from a legal and medical perspective, and the Constitutional framework of Passive Euthanasia will be examined with respect to Article 21 of the Constitution. We will further critically analyze the judicial foundation of Passive Euthanasia in our country with landmark Supreme Court decisions, especially Harish Rana v. Union of India (2026). This article will further evaluate the challenges arising from the absence of comprehensive legislation, and some suggestions to tackle them. The issue of ‘right to die with dignity’, advanced medical directives, palliative care, and requirements of comprehensive legislation on Passive Euthanasia will be discussed in detail.
INTRODUCTION
The primary question which has always aroused in the minds of individuals is whether we are entitled to refuse medical treatment. All these life-saving medicines have occupied a pivotal role in Constitutional law, medical ethics, and most importantly, public policy. Despite the presence of life-saving medicines, there are professionals and technologically advanced healthcare facilities that tend to recover life in the most improbable circumstances. However, all these factors have raised various debates and discrepancies concerning the autonomy of the patients. There has been a lot of state intervention in end-of-life decision-making. It extends beyond medicine and compels a careful examination of the constitutional principles that underpin the Indian legal system. The legal recognition of Article 21[1] of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to live with dignity, also fundamentally gives us the idea of “right to die with dignity”. To be more specific, the debate over euthanasia, particularly passive euthanasia, extends beyond medicine and requires a critical analysis of Constitutional values. The Supreme Court’s recent decision in the case of Harish Rana v. Union of India (2026)[2] is another significant development in the history of challenges to ethical decision-making, medical accountability, and the absence of comprehensive legislation governing end-of-life care in India. Is there a need for a comprehensive legislative framework to ensure clarity, consistency, and effective implementation of passive euthanasia? This article will fundamentally delve into the Constitutional and legal implication of the evolution of passive euthanasia in India.
THE CONCEPT OF EUTHANASIA: LEGAL & MEDICAL PERSPECTIVE
The term ‘euthanasia’ is derived from the Greek words ‘Eu’, meaning ‘Good,’ and Thanatos ‘Death’; the literal meaning of the term is “peaceful death”. However, the legal and medical implication of the term euthanasia is the medical termination of a person’s life. The implication of the term may sound inhuman, but it is done to relieve someone from the clutches of the unbearable pain arising from an incurable or terminal medical condition. Euthanasia is further classified into Active euthanasia and Passive Euthanasia. In India, Active Euthanasia is not recognized as it involves the intentional causing of death of the person, which is also deemed illegal under the Criminal law. However, passive euthanasia is observed when death is caused by extraordinary medical intervention. When the patient is terminally ill or in a permanent vegetative state, medical facilities merely prolong the biological existence without any reasonable prospect of recovery. Thus, the process of natural death is initiated by discontinuing the extraordinary medical intervention.[3]
CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK OF PASSIVE EUTHANASIA UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
The Constitutional framework of passive euthanasia in India is rooted in Article 21[4] of the Constitution of India. It essentially guarantees that no person shall be deprived of their life and personal liberty except according to a procedure which has been established by law. We can outrightly say that there is an explicit mention of the right to life, which also includes the various derivative rights that are essential for the protection of dignity, right to privacy, bodily integrity, and the autonomy to make medical decisions. The evolution of Article 21 of the Constitution is taking place in line with the changing social dynamics and ethical realities. In a jurisprudential perspective, we can say that the right to life is not only confined to the biological existence of a human being but also encompasses the right to die with dignity.
The issue of passive euthanasia has tarnished itself from a purely medical or ethical issue into a matter of fundamental rights. The Constitutional recognition relates to end-to-end life jurisprudence, the medical choices concerning life-support systems, and advanced medical directives fall within the sphere of decisional privacy of an individual. Certain procedural safeguards have evolved, which are devised to protect vulnerable individuals. There are certain unrestricted Constitutional safeguards which are recognized under Article 21, it helps to create a balance between the sanctity of life and the right to die with dignity. This rights-based interpretation system has laid the foundation for the continuous development of the end-of-life jurisprudence in our country, and all the future reforms concerning passive euthanasia and advanced medical directives evolve from the same.[5]
THE JUDICIAL FOUNDATIONS OF PASSIVE EUTHANASIA IN INDIA
The legal recognition of passive euthanasia in India is not a one-day match; it evolved gradually with time. The Indian law previously refrained from recognizing the right to die with dignity. However, the development of end-of-life jurisprudence marked a gradual shift from absolute preservation of the balance of life towards a remarkable arena maintaining sanctity of life with human dignity, autonomy, and compassionate healthcare.
The most significant decision relating to Article 21,[6] which includes ‘the right not to live,’ was taken in the case of P. Rathinam v. Union of India (1994)[7]. The court of law upheld that personal liberty under Article 21 favored an individual’s decision to end their unbearable suffering. It was criticized widely as it failed to distinguish suicide from medically supervised end-of-life decisions. It is to be noted that the decision which was taken up in the case of P. Rathinam v. Union of India (1994) was overruled by a Constitution Bench in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996)[8]. Though the issue of Passive Euthanasia was not directly at issue, observations were included in respect to the natural process of dying. The observation upholds that the right to life includes the right to die with dignity, especially when a person is going through the natural process of death.
A breakthrough occurred in the landmark case of Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011)[9] where the apex court for the very first time recognized the issue of Passive Euthanasia under certain exceptional circumstances. This judgment stands as the first judicial recognition of passive euthanasia, along with the introduction of procedural safeguards aimed at preventing abuse. In this case, a petition was submitted for the withdrawal of the life support system for a nurse who was in a permanent vegetative state since 1973 after a brutal assault. Though the petition was not granted, it established that passive euthanasia can be allowed in exceptional circumstances.
Another landmark judgment relating to the end-of-life jurisprudence was taken in the case of Common Cause v. Union of India (2018)[10] which recognized the right to die with dignity as an integral part of the right to life, which is enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court, while recognizing the legality of Passive Euthanasia under well-regulated circumstances, also explained the validity of Advanced Medical Directives. All these directives are focused on enabling an individual to express their desire relating to future medical treatment if they become incapable of making informed decisions later.[11] The Supreme Court further simplified all these procedures in the year 2023 to facilitate the practical implementation of all the Constitutional principles relating to Passive Euthanasia. It tarnished itself from a matter of medical discretion into a constitutionally protected right enshrined in human dignity and patient autonomy. Thus, it lays down the foundation for future judicial decisions, and the remarkable amongst them is the Harish Rana v. Union of India of 2026[12].
HARISH RANA v. UNION OF INDIA (2026): A NEW ERA IN INDIA’S END-OF-LIFE JURISPRUDENCE
The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Harish Rana v. Union of India (2026)[13] designates a noteworthy advancement in India’s jurisprudence on Passive Euthanasia. In this case, Harish Rana remained in an unresponsive wakefulness state for more than a period of 13 years following a traumatic brain injury. The apex court, after receiving the like-minded opinion of medical experts that there is no realistic possibility of recovery of Harish Rana, stated that the life-sustaining treatment can be withdrawn. It was further declared that if the medical treatment only fundamentally extends the biological existence of the individual, without any practical improvement in the therapeutic purpose, then it can be lawfully removed by appropriate palliative and end-of-life care. The process of Passive Euthanasia should involve rigorous medical examination and procedural safeguards to ensure that the patients receive benevolent treatment throughout the dying process. This judgment is indeed a landmark, as before this, the Aruna Shanbaug (2011) and the Common Cause (2018) judgments only recognized the Constitutional validity of Passive Euthanasia in our country. However, the decision taken by the apex court in the case of Harish Rana demonstrated the practical implementation of Passive Euthanasia in an individual’s case.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The judgment given in the case of Harish Rana v. Union of India (2026) is indeed a landmark as it presents a significant advancement in safeguarding the constitutional right to die with dignity under Article 21. It also highlights the need for a well-drafted, comprehensive legislation on the subject of Passive Euthanasia in our country. The absence of a proper legislative framework results in inconsistencies during implementation, a lack of access to end-of-life care in health care institutions, and uncertainty regarding the responsibilities of medical professionals. Thus, there is an urgent need for the Parliament to enact a dedicated legal framework for regulating Passive Euthanasia, advanced medical directives, patient autonomy, privacy, informed consent, and most importantly, the end-of-life care. Despite the above-stated factors, the decision is important as it balances the Constitutional values with human dignity and the momentum of individual autonomy.
CONCLUSION
The process of evolution of Passive Euthanasia in India is a visible presentation of the Supreme Court’s commitment to preserve not only life but also human dignity. The landmark decisions such as Gian Kaur, Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug, and Common Cause show the Court’s gradual development of the Constitutional recognition of the principle of Passive Euthanasia in our country. The judgment given in the case of Harish Rana v. Union of India (2026)[14] marks a significant step in this journey by translating all these Constitutional principles into practical application. There lie certain important guidelines on the issue, along with the conception of medical accountability, procedural consistency, and a uniform legal framework. As medical science continues to advance, there is an increasing need to improve palliative care, medical directives, and clear regulation of Passive Euthanasia. All these judicial breakthrough, legislative scheme, and medical mandates are oriented towards securing the common goal, that is, to guarantee the right to die with dignity, empathetic care towards the end-of-life with sufficient standards of humanity.
REFERENCES
[1] INDIA CONST.art.21.
[2] Harish Rana v. Union of India [2026] INSC 222.
[3] KANOON JUNCTION, ‘241St Report on Passive Euthanasia – A Relook’ <https://share.google/zJHToREUVB4xPJqCk>, accessed 14th July 2026.
[4] Supra n. 2.
[5] (Livelaw, 11th March 2026) <https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2026/05/20/6098020257150169246judgement11-mar-2026-675161.pdf > accessed 13th July 2026.
[6] Supra n. 2.
[7] P. Rathinam v. Union of India [1994] 3 SCC 394.
[8] Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab AIR [1996] SC 946.
[9] Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India AIR [2011] SC 1290.
[10] Common Cause v. Union of India AIR [2018] SC 1665.
[11] (Manupatra, 23rd February 2018) <MANU-SC-0232-2018-JUD.pdf https://share.google/FbUtBuufdgE3w0VR3 > accessed 14th July 2026.
[12] Harish Rana v. Union of India [2026] INSC 222.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid.
