Artificial Feeding Is Medical Treatment: Supreme Court Permits Withdrawal of Life Support for Harish Rana

Harish Rana, then a 20-year-old B.Tech student, fell from the fourth floor of his paying guest accommodation on 20.08.2013 and suffered a diffuse axonal injury; he has since been in a persistent vegetative state with 100% disability, fed through a surgically placed PEG tube (paras 6-7, 11-12). The Delhi High Court refused relief on 02.07.2024, holding he was not kept alive mechanically, and this Court's order of 08.11.2024 secured home care with liberty to return (paras 2-4). In this application his parents sought withdrawal of CANH; both medical boards and the family agreed that continuing it was not in his best interest (paras 13-21).

Revisiting Common Cause 2018, the Court held that active and passive euthanasia differ in the source of harm, not merely as acts and omissions: withdrawal lets the natural course of life run (para 293). CANH is not basic care but a medical intervention prescribed and supervised by professionals, even at home, so medical boards may decide on its withdrawal like any other treatment (paras 301-305). The question is not whether the patient should die but whether his life should be prolonged by the treatment; a strong presumption favours preserving life, but it yields when medical considerations such as futility and non-medical ones such as what he would have wanted point the other way, weighed on a balance sheet (paras 310-316). Where both boards agree, no court approval is needed (para 318). Withdrawal must move to a structured palliative and end-of-life care plan, and 'discharge against medical advice' is disapproved (paras 319-320). The Court streamlined the guidelines and called on the Union to legislate (paras 322-323). Viswanathan J. concurred.