Harish Rana case: Why SC Justice Pardiwala quoted Shakespeare to let Ghaziabad engineering student ‘die’

The Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed passive euthanasia for Harish Rana, a 31-year-old from Ghaziabad who has remained in a vegetative state for over 13 years after a serious accident. The court permitted doctors to withdraw life-sustaining treatment, saying medical reports showed no possibility of recovery and continuing artificial nutrition would not be in the patient’s best interest. While delivering the ruling, Justice JB Pardiwala referred to William Shakespeare’s famous line “To be or not to be”, linking the literary phrase to the legal question of the right to die with dignity.

Also Read: Harish Rana case: What is euthanasia, difference between passive and active euthanasia, is it legal in India?

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Vishwanathan passed the order after examining several medical reports on Rana’s condition. The judges said that further administration of clinically assisted nutrition would not serve the patient’s interests.

Hrish Rana Case: Why the court referred to Shakespeare

At the beginning of the judgment, Justice Pardiwala turned to literature to frame the moral question before the court.

"The famous literary Shakespeare quote 'To be or not to be' is now being used for judicially interpreting the 'Right to Die'", Justice Pardiwala noted at the beginning of the judgement.

The bench also cited another well-known line while reflecting on the issue.

"'Gods ask no man if he accepts life, you must take it'. These are the words of (US minister) Henry (Ward Beecher) which hold significance when courts are asked if individuals can choose to die."

Also Read: Tarun case Uttam Nagar: 26-year-old, killed in minor Holi splash, deadlifted 100 kgs, posted high-energy Insta reels and had big dreams

The court used the references to underline the difficult balance between preserving life and recognising a person’s dignity when recovery becomes medically impossible.

Accident left student in vegetative state

Harish Rana, a resident of Ghaziabad, was once a 20-year-old student studying at Panjab University. In 2013, he fell from the fourth floor of a building at his paying guest accommodation and suffered severe head injuries.

“Harish Rana was once a bright young 20-year-old boy pursuing education at Punjab University when he had a fall from the fourth floor of a building and sustained brain injuries. Harish was discharged, but a brain injury left him in a persistent vegetative state. He experiences a sleep-wake cycle and is dependent on others. The medical report shows no improvement in 13 years,” the court said.

The judges noted that Rana has remained completely dependent on caregivers since the accident and has not shown any medical improvement during this period.

AIIMS asked to oversee withdrawal of treatment

The Supreme Court directed the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) in Delhi to admit Rana to its palliative care department so that life-sustaining treatment can be withdrawn in a controlled medical setting.

“It must be ensured that it is withdrawn with a tailored plan so that dignity is maintained,” the order said.

The bench observed that doctors have a duty to treat patients, but that duty changes when medical science offers no hope of recovery.

Court acknowledges parents’ long care

During the hearing, the judges also recognised the efforts of Rana’s parents, who have cared for him throughout the years despite the challenges.

“You are not giving up in your son. You are allowing him to live with dignity”, Justice Pardiwala said while concluding the judgement.

The court noted that the family had remained by Rana’s side through the difficult period.

First full use of earlier euthanasia guidelines

The Supreme Court said the decision applied guidelines laid down in its earlier ruling in the Common Cause case.

“However, the present case represents the first instance where the guidelines laid down in Common Cause v. Union of India are being applied in their full measure before this Court,” the bench said.

In 2018, a Constitution Bench recognised passive euthanasia and the right to die with dignity as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The judgment allowed withdrawal of life support under strict safeguards, including advance medical directives.

Later, on January 24, 2023, another Constitution Bench modified those guidelines to simplify the procedure for granting passive euthanasia to terminally ill patients.

Before Wednesday’s decision, the Supreme Court had also directed a medical board at the Noida district hospital in November 2025 to examine Rana’s condition and assess the possibility of passive euthanasia.

What passive euthanasia means

Passive euthanasia refers to withholding or withdrawing medical treatment that keeps a patient alive, allowing death to occur naturally. It is usually considered in cases where patients are in a persistent vegetative state or have no realistic chance of recovery.

(Inputs from TOI and agencies)