Ghaziabad, The father of Harish Rana, in a coma for more than 13 years, Wednesday said the Supreme Court permitting the withdrawal of artificial life support to his son won’t bring any personal benefit to the family but in the larger public interest, the decision could help others facing similar situations.
Ashok Rana, who had pleaded before the apex court that allowing passive euthanasia will restore his son’s dignity after years of irreversible suffering, said, “As a father, it is extremely painful. No parent would ever want to see their son in such a condition.”
Earlier in the day, the top court allowed passive euthanasia for Harish, who has been in a permanent vegetative state since 2013 after suffering severe head injuries from a fall from the fourth floor of his paying guest accommodation on August 20 that year.
Ashok Rana described the decision as extremely difficult but said it was taken in Harish’s best interests and expressed hope that the ruling would help other families facing similar situations.
“We believe that in the larger public interest, the decision could help families of many people who may be in a condition like Harish,” he said while speaking briefly to reporters outside his residence here.
He said the ruling would not bring any personal benefit to the family but was taken with a heavy heart.
He, however, thanked the Supreme Court for hearing their plea and passing what he described as a “humane order”.
While admitting that the family was preparing to shift Harish to AIIMS, Ashok Rana said they hadn’t decided on the time yet.
“We haven’t decided on that yet, as we await family members’ arrival. Also, that is subject to when the official consent arrives,” he told PTI in a brief conversation.
Later in a statement, the family said they approached the Supreme Court after realising that their son’s condition was incurable and irreversible and sought only the implementation of the guidelines on withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment.
They said the court had clarified that the decision did not amount to “active euthanasia” but involved withdrawal of the feeding tube and providing palliative care so that the natural process of death could take place with dignity.
Shortly after the Supreme Court pronounced its judgment, a crowd consisting mainly of journalists and television cameramen gathered outside the Brahm Raj Empire society in Ghaziabad, where the Rana family currently resides.
Security personnel at the residential complex tightened access and prevented outsiders from entering the premises.
District Magistrate Ravindra Kumar Madar and Municipal Commissioner Vikramiditya Malik visited his residence at 3.15 pm and stayed there at least 15 minutes.
Neighbours said the family had gone out of their way to get their son treated.
Ashok Rana and his wife Nirmala had sold their house in Delhi to meet the medical expenses of their son, some locals said.
They added that Ashok Rana, who earlier worked in the catering department of a large hospitality chain, now receives a monthly pension of about ₹3,600.
Claiming anonymity, another resident said that Ashok Rana sells sandwiches at nearby cricket grounds in the mornings to make ends meet.
In written submissions before the court, the family had said Harish has remained in an “irreversible and incurable permanent vegetative state” with 100 per cent disability for more than 12 years and survives only with clinically assisted nutrition and hydration administered through a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube.
They said the artificial feeding system merely sustains his biological survival and has no therapeutic benefit or possibility of reversing the severe brain injury.
The family argued that continuing such treatment would only prolong life artificially without any prospect of recovery.
Referring to the constitutional principle of the Right to Live with Dignity under Article 21, the submissions said the law permits withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment in cases where a patient is in an incurable and irreversible condition and medical intervention only prolongs suffering.
The family had pleaded that passive euthanasia and the withdrawal of life-support systems are legally permissible when medical experts certify that the patient has no chance of recovery.
According to the submissions, two medical boards constituted at the direction of the Supreme Court found Harish’s condition to be irreversible and confirmed that he has remained in a permanent vegetative state for more than a decade.
The secondary medical board also noted that the feeding tube being used in his case only provides sustenance for survival and cannot restore his cognitive function or reverse the underlying brain damage.
The family told the court that their request was not motivated by a desire to cause death but by the belief that it was not in Harish’s best interests to continue living in such a condition.
They said the decision sought from the court was whether it was appropriate to prolong life artificially through continued medical intervention rather than whether death itself was desirable.
The submissions also pointed out that Rana had been cared for at home by his parents for several years, which had delayed the formal medical board process envisaged under the Supreme Court’s guidelines for withdrawal of life support.
In 2024, the family approached the Delhi High Court seeking a direction for constitution of a medical board to examine his condition under the Common Cause guidelines.
However, the high court dismissed the plea on the ground that Rana was not dependent on mechanical life support.
The family later approached the Supreme Court, which directed authorities to provide home medical care with the assistance of the Union health ministry and the Uttar Pradesh government while granting liberty to seek further directions.
Following a deterioration in his condition and hospitalisation in May 2025, the apex court directed the constitution of primary and secondary medical boards to examine the case.
Both the boards concluded that Harish’s condition was irreversible and that continued medical intervention could not improve his neurological state.
The family said the request for withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment was therefore based on medical evidence and the legal framework evolved by the Supreme Court on passive euthanasia.
They also highlighted that the guidelines laid down in the Common Cause judgment were intended to ensure that such decisions are taken in the patient’s best interests while respecting the right to die with dignity.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.