Ghaziabad, March 11 – The father of Harish Rana, who has been in a coma for over 13 years, said that the Supreme Court's decision to allow the withdrawal of artificial life support would not benefit the family personally, but it could help others in similar situations.
Ashok Rana, who had pleaded with the Supreme Court to allow passive euthanasia, arguing that it would restore his son's dignity after years of suffering, said, "As a father, it is extremely painful. No parent would ever want to see their child in such a condition."
Earlier that day, the Supreme Court had allowed passive euthanasia for Harish, who has been in a permanent vegetative state since 2013 after suffering severe head injuries in August 2013, when he fell from the fourth floor of his rented accommodation.
Ashok Rana described the decision as difficult but said it was taken in Harish's best interests. He 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.
The family had also stated that they had been preparing to move Harish to AIIMS, but they hadn't yet decided on the specific time.
They also stated that their approach to the Supreme Court was motivated by a desire to ensure that Harish's best interests were considered, rather than a desire for him to die.
The family had initially sought the implementation of guidelines on withdrawing life-sustaining treatment, after realizing that Harish's condition was incurable and irreversible.
They had also clarified that the court's decision did not constitute "active euthanasia," but rather the withdrawal of the feeding tube and provision of palliative care to allow for a natural death with dignity.
Shortly after the Supreme Court's judgment, a crowd 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 Harish's residence at 3.15 pm and stayed there for at least 15 minutes.
Neighbours said the family had gone to great lengths to get Harish treated.
Ashok Rana and his wife Nirmala had sold their house in Delhi to cover Harish's medical expenses, according to some locals.
They added that Ashok Rana, who previously worked in the catering department of a large hospitality chain, now receives a monthly pension of about Rs 3,600.
Anonymously, another resident said that Ashok Rana sells sandwiches at nearby cricket grounds in the mornings to make ends meet.
In their submissions to the court, the family had stated that 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 had argued that 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.