Explained: The Supreme Court's First Real-World Order on Passive Euthanasia Since 2018

Nearly a decade after declaring that the right to die with dignity flows from Article 21, the Supreme Court has, for the first time, actually applied that right to permit withdrawal of life support for a man who had lain in a persistent vegetative state for thirteen years.

The Supreme Court permitted withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment for a man who had spent thirteen years in a persistent vegetative state, after satisfying itself on medical evidence that continued treatment served no therapeutic purpose. While the Court had recognised the right to die with dignity back in 2018, this is reportedly the first time it has itself granted passive euthanasia in an actual case, rather than merely laying down guidelines for others to apply.

The order rests on Article 21, read to include the right to refuse or withdraw treatment that only prolongs suffering without hope of recovery. Such pleas reach the Court via Article 32, its rulings bind all courts under Article 141, and Article 142 lets it tailor complete justice where existing guidelines don't neatly fit the facts. Court-sanctioned withdrawal is shielded from murder/culpable-homicide liability under BNS provisions like Section 16, distinguishing lawful passive euthanasia from offences like abetment of suicide (Section 108) or negligence (Section 106).

Remember: passive euthanasia (withdrawing treatment) is constitutionally protected under Article 21; active euthanasia is not. Key milestones: 2011 Aruna Shanbaug case (principle accepted), 2018 Constitution Bench (living wills, guidelines), and this order (first actual application). Also note IPC Section 309's repeal, with BNS retaining only a narrow Section 226 offence.