Supreme Court directs Noida hospital to set up medical board on father’s euthanasia plea

A bench headed by justice JB Pardiwala directed the district hospital in Sector 39, Noida, to submit a medical assessment within two weeks, in a sealed cover

The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Noida district hospital to constitute a “primary board of doctors” to examine a father’s plea seeking passive euthanasia for his 31-year-old son, who lives with 100% disability and remains in a permanent vegetative state for the past 12 years.

The plea was moved by Ashok Rana, father of Harish, who became quadriplegic in August 2013 after he fell from the fourth floor of his PG accommodation while pursuing BTech at Punjab University. He has since been taken to multiple hospitals and is now supported by tubes for breathing and nutrition. (HT Archive)

A bench headed by justice JB Pardiwala directed the district hospital in Sector 39, Noida, to submit a medical assessment within two weeks, in a sealed cover. “We direct the Primary Board that may be constituted (by the hospital) to give us a report whether the life sustaining treatment can be withheld or in other words withdrawn,” the court said, defining the inquiry around the withdrawal of life-support. The matter will be next heard on December 11.

The plea was moved by Ashok Rana, father of Harish, who became quadriplegic in August 2013 after he fell from the fourth floor of his PG accommodation while pursuing BTech at Punjab University. He has since been taken to multiple hospitals and is now supported by tubes for breathing and nutrition.

Advocate Rashmi Nandakumar, appearing for the father, told the court that a similar request in November 2024 resulted in an order for treatment at the state’s expense, but stressed his health has deteriorated further in the past year and he is now in a “pathetic condition”. She added that he is not responding to treatment and is being kept artificially alive.

Considering these facts, the bench, also comprising justice KV Viswanathan, said, “...Let the Primary Board file its report before this court in a sealed cover at the earliest, preferably, within a period of two weeks.”

In 2023, the Supreme Court laid down guidelines for passive euthanasia, directing hospitals to form a Primary Board of Doctors to assess patients in a permanent vegetative state. If the Primary Board certifies withholding or withdrawal of medical treatment, a Secondary Board must re-examine the case. Only if the Secondary Board endorses the earlier opinion, the hospital may proceed to withhold or withdraw treatment after intimating the judicial magistrate and the patient’s kin.

Citing this ruling, Rana’s parents moved the Delhi high court last year, seeking a medical board’s view on withdrawing “life-sustaining” treatment. The HC dismissed the plea in July 2024 by observing, “In the present case, the facts indicate that the petitioner is not being kept alive mechanically and he is able to sustain himself without any extra external aid. The petitioner is thus living and no one, including a physician, is permitted to cause the death of another person by administering any lethal drug, even if the objective is to relieve the patient from pain and suffering.”

The parents then approached the top court, but on November 8, 2024, the request for passive euthanasia was turned down.

However, the SC ordered that Harish be provided home-care with assistance from the Uttar Pradesh government, including regular visits from a physiotherapist, dietician, medical officer on call, nursing care at home and the availability of all required medicines and consumables free of cost. It further held that if home-care is not feasible, he may be shifted to the Noida district hospital, where he is currently undergoing treatment.

Moving an application in the disposed petition, the father said, “The scope of this application is narrowly confined to seeking a referral of the petitioner’s case to a primary medical board, in accordance with the procedure laid down by this court in Common Cause (2023). The purpose of such referral is to obtain an expert medical opinion on the advisability of continuing clinically assisted nutrition and hydration, which constitutes a form of life-sustaining treatment. Such a determination is imperative to safeguard the dignity of the petitioner, which is an integral facet of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”