| Greek Word | Meaning | Combined Term | Literal Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eu | Good / Well | Euthanasia | Good Death / Dying Well |
| Thanatos | Death |
The term first appeared in English in the 1640s. The Roman historian Suetonius used it to describe the death of Emperor Augustus — peaceful and painless. In the modern legal context, it refers to the deliberate act of ending a terminally ill person's life to relieve unbearable suffering, typically with physician involvement.
Mercy killing is the popular synonym. MAID (Medical Aid in Dying) is the contemporary preferred term in international medical literature.
The term "euthanasia" in the sense of legally sanctioned mercy killing was first recorded in English in 1869. Francis Bacon (17th century) used it to mean an easy, painless death — the physician's duty to alleviate suffering.
| Type | Consent Status | India's Legal Status |
|---|---|---|
| Voluntary | Patient consciously requests death | Partially permitted (via living will for passive) |
| Non-voluntary | Patient cannot consent (PVS, coma) | Permitted for passive only — via medical boards + family |
| Involuntary | Against patient's will | Illegal — amounts to murder |
Many students think "right to die" is a Fundamental Right in India — it is NOT. The right to die with dignity (not the right to die per se) is recognised under Article 21. Active euthanasia remains illegal. The 2026 SC judgment also officially replaced the term "passive euthanasia" with "Withdrawal or Withholding of Medical Treatment".
| Term | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Living Will / AMD | Legal document stating patient's wishes for medical care if they become incapacitated; legalised by Common Cause 2018 |
| PVS | Persistent Vegetative State — wakefulness without awareness; brain stem functions but cortex is dead |
| CANH | Clinically Assisted Nutrition and Hydration — feeding via PEG tubes/nasogastric tubes. SC 2026: This IS medical treatment (not basic care) and CAN be withdrawn |
| Physician-Assisted Suicide | Doctor provides means; patient self-administers. Distinct from euthanasia where doctor performs the act |
| Best Interest Test | Key principle: not "is it in patient's interest to die?" but "is prolongation in patient's best interest?" |
| Substituted Judgment | Decision-makers must ask: "What would the patient have wanted if they had capacity?" — patient-centric, not family-centric |
UPSC Prelims often tests the active vs. passive distinction and whether euthanasia is a FR. Remember: passive euthanasia is legal; active is illegal; "right to die with dignity" ≠ "right to die." Also note: the SC in 2026 preferred the term "withdrawal/withholding of medical treatment" over "passive euthanasia."
Article 21 of the Constitution: "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law."
The Supreme Court has expansively interpreted "life" to include a life of dignity, not mere animal existence. The key question in euthanasia jurisprudence: does the right to live with dignity also include the right to die with dignity?
| Case & Year | Article 21 Holding |
|---|---|
| P. Rathinam v. UoI (1994) | Article 21 includes right to die → struck down S.309 IPC (later overruled) |
| Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996) | 5-judge bench: Article 21 does NOT include right to die. Right to life and right to die are inconsistent. Overruled Rathinam. S.309 constitutional. |
| Aruna Shanbaug v. UoI (2011) | Passive euthanasia legal under Article 21 in narrow PVS cases — with HC oversight |
| Common Cause v. UoI (2018) | 5-judge bench: Right to die with dignity is an integral part of Article 21. Living wills legalised. |
| Common Cause Modified Guidelines (2023) | Streamlined procedure; removed mandatory magistrate attestation for living wills |
| Harish Rana v. UoI (2026) | First practical application; CANH = medical treatment; "best interest" test elaborated |
Right to die is NOT a Fundamental Right, but right to die with dignity IS protected under Article 21 (Common Cause 2018). This is a critical distinction tested in UPSC Prelims.
| Provision | Subject | Relevance to Euthanasia |
|---|---|---|
| Article 21 | Right to life and personal liberty | Constitutional basis for right to die with dignity (passive euthanasia) |
| BNS S.100 | Culpable homicide | Active euthanasia could fall here — illegal in India |
| BNS S.101 | Murder | Any direct act causing death (active euthanasia) = murder unless exempted |
| BNS S.108 | Abetment of suicide | Complicates physician-assisted suicide; not applicable to passive euthanasia |
| IPC S.309 (old) | Attempt to commit suicide | Survived Gian Kaur (1996); Mental Healthcare Act 2017 effectively decriminalised suicide attempts |
| Mental Healthcare Act 2017 | Mental illness, suicide | Persons attempting suicide presumed under severe stress — not to be prosecuted |
Students confuse euthanasia with suicide. The SC in Naresh Marotrao Sakhre v. UoI clearly distinguished: suicide = self-destruction; euthanasia = third-party involvement (usually physician). Section 309 IPC (attempted suicide) does NOT cover euthanasia.
196th Law Commission Report (2006): Recommended Parliament consider legalising passive euthanasia under strict guidelines. Distinguished "mercy killing" from "withdrawal of life support." Parliament did not act.
241st Law Commission Report (2012): Seventeenth Law Commission re-examined the issue. Supported passive euthanasia on humanitarian grounds. Clarified that a competent patient's informed decision to refuse treatment does not attract S.309 IPC (attempt to commit suicide) or S.306 IPC (abetment of suicide).
As of May 2026, no dedicated legislation on euthanasia exists in India. The 2026 SC judgment in Harish Rana explicitly noted this gap and urged Parliament to enact a comprehensive End-of-Life Care Act covering living wills, surrogate decision-making, and palliative protocols.
| Country | Active Euthanasia | Passive Euthanasia | Assisted Suicide | Key Law/Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| India | ❌ Illegal | ✅ Legal (strict conditions) | ❌ Illegal | Common Cause 2018; Harish Rana 2026 |
| Netherlands | ✅ Legal (strict) | ✅ Legal | ✅ Legal | Euthanasia Act 2002 |
| Belgium | ✅ Legal (incl. minors) | ✅ Legal | ✅ Legal | Belgian Act 2002 |
| Canada | ✅ Legal (MAID) | ✅ Legal | ✅ Legal | MAID Law 2016 (amended 2021) |
| UK | ❌ Illegal | ✅ Legal | ❌ Illegal (Bill 2025 pending) | Terminally Ill Adults Bill 2025 |
| USA | ❌ (all states) | ✅ Legal (all states) | ✅ Legal (Oregon, Washington, CA, etc.) | Oregon Death with Dignity Act 1997 |
| Switzerland | ❌ Illegal | ✅ Legal | ✅ Legal (Dignitas) | "Suicide tourism" destination |
| Australia | ✅ (all 6 states — VAD) | ✅ Legal | ✅ Legal | Victoria VAD Act 2019 + all states |
| Spain | ✅ Legal | ✅ Legal | ✅ Legal | Organic Law 2021 |
| Japan | ❌ Illegal | ✅ (court-guided) | ❌ Illegal | No specific law; court guidelines |
Netherlands and Belgium were the first countries to formally legalise euthanasia (2002). Switzerland is the leading destination for "suicide tourism" (assisted suicide via Dignitas), attracting mainly UK, Germany, and France nationals.
Only a few Indian states — Maharashtra, Goa, and Karnataka — had created the CMO-nominated Secondary Medical Boards required under Common Cause guidelines as of 2026. Private hospitals across India largely avoided initiating the protocol due to fear of litigation.
| Condition | Details |
|---|---|
| Medical Condition | Terminal illness OR Persistent Vegetative State (PVS) with no realistic hope of recovery |
| Patient with Living Will | AMD executed in advance; notarised or attested by Gazetted Officer (post-2023 simplification) |
| Patient without Living Will | Next of kin / guardian must approach Primary Medical Board → Secondary Medical Board → if dispute, SC/HC |
| CANH | PEG tubes, nasogastric tubes qualify as medical treatment (clarified Harish Rana 2026) — can be withdrawn |
| Mechanical Ventilator | Not required for passive euthanasia — Delhi HC's 2024 narrow view (requiring ventilator) was overruled by SC 2026 |
| Age | Adult patients; no express provision for minors in India |
The Delhi High Court in 2024 had rejected Harish Rana's petition because he was not on a mechanical ventilator — treating feeding tubes as "basic care," not medical treatment. The SC overruled this in 2026. Do not confuse this: CANH (feeding tubes) = medical treatment and CAN be withdrawn.
The 2026 SC explicitly stated that "financial distress should not shape end-of-life decisions." Economic coercion of families is explicitly rejected as a basis for passive euthanasia.
P. Rathinam v. Union of India (1994) · 2-judge bench · SC held Article 21 includes the "right to die." Section 309 IPC (attempted suicide) struck down as unconstitutional. Overruled 2 years later by Gian Kaur.
Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996) · 5-judge Constitution Bench · Article 21 does NOT include right to die. "Right to life" and "right to die" are mutually inconsistent. Section 309 IPC upheld as constitutional. P. Rathinam expressly overruled. Left open the question of passive euthanasia in terminal illness cases.
Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011) · 2-judge bench · India's first judicial recognition of passive euthanasia. Nurse Aruna Shanbaug (KEM Hospital, Mumbai) had been in PVS for 37+ years after 1973 assault. SC permitted passive euthanasia under High Court oversight + medical board. Living wills acknowledged (though not yet legalised). Denied the specific petition (nurses of KEM opposed withdrawal). Key holding: "brain death" ≠ PVS; court can allow withdrawal of treatment in PVS cases.
Common Cause v. Union of India (2018) · 5-judge Constitution Bench (CJ Dipak Mishra, JJ A.K. Sikri, A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan) · Unanimous judgment. Right to die with dignity is a Fundamental Right under Article 21. Living wills / Advance Medical Directives legalised. Comprehensive two-tier medical board system established. High Court oversight made mandatory (later modified). Laid down complete procedural framework for passive euthanasia in India.
Common Cause Modified Guidelines (January 2023) · Constitution Bench · Guidelines of 2018 modified to ease access. Mandatory Judicial Magistrate attestation for living wills replaced by notarisation or Gazetted Officer attestation. Timelines set for constitution of medical boards. Role of Judicial Magistrate reduced. Streamlined the process significantly.
Harish Rana v. Union of India (2026 INSC 222) · 2-judge bench (JJ J.B. Pardiwala & K.V. Viswanathan) · Decided 11 March 2026 (Misc. Application No. 2238 of 2025). India's first actual implementation of passive euthanasia. 32-year-old Harish Rana, PVS since 2013 fall, Ghaziabad. Primary and Secondary Medical Boards confirmed no hope of recovery. SC overruled Delhi HC 2024 narrow view. Key rulings: (1) CANH = medical treatment that can be withdrawn; (2) "Best interest" test = not "is it in patient's interest to die?" but "is prolonging treatment in best interest?"; (3) "Substituted judgment" standard — decision-makers must be patient-centric; (4) SC clarified that "passive euthanasia" should be replaced by "withdrawal/withholding of medical treatment"; (5) Parliament urged to enact comprehensive legislation. Harish Rana transferred to AIIMS palliative care, passed away 24 March 2026.
Harish Rana's family first approached the Delhi High Court in 2024 — the HC rejected the plea because he was not on a mechanical ventilator. The SC in 2026 overruled this narrow interpretation, clarifying that CANH via PEG tubes is medical treatment regardless of mechanical ventilation status.
Naresh Marotrao Sakhre v. Union of India: SC distinguished suicide (self-destruction) from euthanasia (third-party involvement). Suicide = a unilateral act; euthanasia involves a physician. Section 309 IPC does not cover euthanasia scenarios.
State v. Sanjay Kumar Bhatia: Court held Section 309 IPC (penalising attempted suicide) was "unworthy of human society" — foreshadowing later Mental Healthcare Act 2017 approach.
Students often think Aruna Shanbaug's petition was granted. It was NOT — the nurses of KEM Hospital who cared for her opposed withdrawal, and SC declined to order withdrawal. She died naturally in 2015. The case was significant for recognising the principle and setting guidelines, not for allowing euthanasia in that specific case.
A living will is a legal document that allows a mentally competent adult to specify, in advance, the conditions under which they would want life-sustaining treatment to be withdrawn. It is India's primary tool for voluntary passive euthanasia.
| Feature | Common Cause 2018 (Original) | Modified Guidelines 2023 |
|---|---|---|
| Attestation | Mandatory countersignature by Judicial Magistrate | Notarisation OR Gazetted Officer attestation |
| Medical Board | 2-tier; timelines not fixed | 2-tier; specific timelines set for constitution |
| HC Role | Mandatory HC approval in all cases | HC involved only if medical boards disagree |
| Accessibility | Notoriously burdensome and slow | Significantly streamlined |
| Registration | Not required | Integration into National Health Digital Record recommended |
As of 2025, despite being legalised in 2018 and simplified in 2023, only approximately 50 living wills had been formally registered across India — reflecting critically low public awareness.
| Stage | Board | Composition | Function |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stage 1 | Primary Medical Board | 3 treating hospital doctors including specialist | Assess whether condition is irreversible; whether continuing treatment serves therapeutic purpose |
| Stage 2 | Secondary Medical Board | CMO-nominated doctors (including independent expert) | Independent review of Primary Board's report; second opinion safeguard |
| Stage 3 (if dispute) | High Court / Supreme Court | Judicial oversight | Final arbitration when boards or family disagree; or when no living will |
In Harish Rana (2026), the Supreme Court itself constituted both the primary and secondary medical boards (in 2025), received their reports, and then in March 2026 passed the final order permitting withdrawal of CANH.
| Safeguard | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Two independent medical boards | Prevents single-doctor decision; ensures clinical consensus |
| Family consent / next of kin petition | Ensures family involvement in non-voluntary cases |
| "Best Interest" test (not "interest to die") | Patient-centric; focuses on benefit of continued treatment, not death |
| Substituted judgment standard | Decision-makers must think from patient's perspective, not family's convenience |
| Economic coercion prohibition | Financial distress of family cannot be basis for withdrawal (Harish Rana 2026) |
| Palliative care transition | Patient moved to palliative care with dignity — not abruptly abandoned |
| Judicial oversight available | HC/SC as final arbiter in contested cases |
UPSC may ask about the two-tier medical board system. Remember: Primary Board = treating hospital doctors; Secondary Board = CMO-nominated independent experts. Both must agree before treatment is withdrawn.
The 2023 modification did NOT legalise active euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide. It only simplified the procedure for passive euthanasia / living wills. Students conflate simplification with liberalisation of the law.
| FR / Article | Connection to Euthanasia |
|---|---|
| Article 21 — Right to Life & Personal Liberty | Primary constitutional peg; right to die with dignity flows from "life of dignity." Right to refuse treatment = personal liberty. |
| Article 21 — Right to Privacy (K.S. Puttaswamy 2017) | Bodily integrity and autonomy over one's own body — directly supports the right to refuse life-sustaining treatment |
| Article 19(1)(a) — Freedom of Speech | Right to express end-of-life wishes (living will) has a free speech dimension |
| Article 32 — Right to Constitutional Remedies | Common Cause filed writ under Article 32 seeking right to die with dignity as FR |
| Article 14 — Right to Equality | Low awareness + complex procedures = unequal access to passive euthanasia across socio-economic classes |
| Concept | Who acts? | How death occurs | India's Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Passive Euthanasia | Physician (omission) | Natural death from underlying disease | Legal (with safeguards) |
| Active Euthanasia | Physician (commission) | Direct act (e.g., lethal injection) | Illegal (BNS S.100–101) |
| Physician-Assisted Suicide | Doctor provides means; patient self-administers | Patient's own act | Illegal |
| Suicide | Individual (self) | Self-inflicted | Attempt partially decriminalised (MHA 2017) |
| Palliative Care | Medical team | Eases suffering; death natural | Legal; encouraged by SC |
| MAID | Varies | Medical aid in dying | Not recognised as a category in India |
Jains have the traditional ritual of Santhara (Sallekhana) — voluntary fasting unto death. Hindus have Prayopavesa. These are considered distinct from euthanasia; religious leaders have generally found passive euthanasia acceptable in extreme circumstances.
Article 47 (DPSP) — State shall raise the level of nutrition, standard of living, and improvement of public health. Linked to the state's duty to provide palliative care as part of health infrastructure, especially for end-of-life patients.
Article 38 — Welfare state obligation to protect rights of vulnerable citizens, including those in PVS — cannot be exploited by families for financial reasons (Harish Rana 2026 warning against economic coercion).
For Prelims, link euthanasia primarily to Article 21. For a supplementary angle: Article 47 (public health) connects to palliative care. The "right to health" under Article 21 has been interpreted to include dignified end-of-life care.
All points below are sourced from verified news reports and SC judgments published between 2025 and May 2026.
Harish Rana v. Union of India (2026 INSC 222) — India's First Passive Euthanasia Implemented. A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan on 11 March 2026 permitted the withdrawal of Clinically Assisted Nutrition and Hydration (CANH) for 32-year-old Harish Rana of Ghaziabad, in PVS since a 2013 fall. This was the first time India's courts implemented the passive euthanasia guidelines in a real case. Harish Rana passed away at AIIMS Delhi on 24 March 2026 — 13 days after the order. The court explicitly renamed "passive euthanasia" as "withdrawal/withholding of medical treatment" and noted Parliament must legislate a comprehensive End-of-Life Care Act. Source: Al Jazeera, SCC Online, JURIST — March 2026.
CANH Declared Medical Treatment — Key Doctrinal Shift. The 2026 judgment resolved a crucial ambiguity: Clinically Assisted Nutrition and Hydration (CANH) — administered via PEG tubes or nasogastric tubes — constitutes "medical treatment," not merely "basic nursing care." This overturned the Delhi HC's 2024 rejection of Harish Rana's petition, which had classified feeding tubes as basic care and thus not withdrawable. The SC clarified that CANH requires clinical indication and continuous medical monitoring, making it medical treatment subject to withdrawal under Common Cause guidelines. Source: SCC Times, LiveLaw — March 2026.
UK's Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill — Global Debate Reignited. The UK House of Commons passed the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill in 2025, allowing assisted dying for terminally ill adults with less than six months to live, under strict safeguards and multiple medical approvals. This legislation reignited global debate on the right to die with dignity and prompted The Hindu's editorial (October 7, 2025) to call for India to reform its passive euthanasia framework. Source: Drishti IAS / The Hindu — October 2025.
India's First Living Will Clinic Opens — Apollo Hospital, New Delhi. The first living will clinic in a private hospital in North India opened at Apollo Hospital, New Delhi — a direct response to the 2026 SC judgment. This marks a significant step toward making advance medical directives accessible to the public. The 2026 judgment also revealed major implementation gaps: only a few states (Maharashtra, Goa, Karnataka) had operational CMO-nominated Secondary Medical Boards; private hospitals largely avoid initiating the protocol fearing litigation. Source: VisionIAS Blog — March 2026.
Post-Harish Rana: Debate on Parliament's Role. Legal commentary (JURIST, April 2026) noted that while the Supreme Court has fulfilled its role — recognising the right in 2018 and applying it in 2026 — "the absence of parliamentary support creates the existing situation." Parliament has not acted on Law Commission recommendations from 2006 and 2012. The 2026 SC judgment once again explicitly urged the Government of India to enact a comprehensive End-of-Life Care statute covering living wills, surrogate decision-making, and palliative care protocols. Source: JURIST — April 2026.
The Harish Rana v. Union of India (2026) judgment is extremely high-probability for UPSC Prelims 2026. Know: (1) India's first implementation of passive euthanasia; (2) CANH = medical treatment; (3) Bench = Justices J.B. Pardiwala & K.V. Viswanathan; (4) Term "passive euthanasia" replaced by "withdrawal/withholding of medical treatment"; (5) Parliament urged to legislate. Also note: Living Will clinic opened at Apollo Hospital, New Delhi — March 2026.
| Statement | T/F | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| The right to die is a Fundamental Right under Article 21 of the Constitution. | ❌ FALSE | The right to die with dignity is recognised (Common Cause 2018), but NOT the general right to die. Active euthanasia remains illegal. |
| Active euthanasia is illegal in India even if the patient gives informed consent. | ✅ TRUE | Active euthanasia is illegal in India under all circumstances — no exceptions. BNS Sections 100–101 apply. |
| The Common Cause v. Union of India (2018) judgment was by a 5-judge Constitution Bench. | ✅ TRUE | CJ Dipak Mishra headed the unanimous 5-judge bench. |
| A "living will" must be countersigned by a Judicial Magistrate as of 2025. | ❌ FALSE | The 2023 modification removed mandatory magistrate attestation. Now requires notarisation or Gazetted Officer attestation. |
| Aruna Shanbaug's petition for euthanasia was granted by the Supreme Court in 2011. | ❌ FALSE | The petition was filed by journalist Pinki Virani; the SC declined to grant withdrawal as the nurses of KEM opposed it. Shanbaug died naturally in 2015. |
| Clinically Assisted Nutrition and Hydration (CANH) via feeding tubes is classified as medical treatment in India. | ✅ TRUE | Clarified in Harish Rana v. UoI (2026) — overruling Delhi HC's 2024 view that it was basic care. |
| Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996) held that Article 21 includes the right to die. | ❌ FALSE | It explicitly held the OPPOSITE — Article 21 does NOT include right to die. It overruled P. Rathinam (1994). |
| Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS) is legal in India. | ❌ FALSE | Only passive euthanasia (withdrawal of treatment) is permitted. PAS remains illegal in India. |
| India enacted a comprehensive euthanasia law after the Common Cause 2018 judgment. | ❌ FALSE | No legislative action. The SC guidelines serve as law of the land until Parliament enacts legislation. |
| The Harish Rana case (2026) was the first time India implemented passive euthanasia in an individual case. | ✅ TRUE | First real-world application of Common Cause guidelines for a specific patient in Indian judicial history. |
Students often mark active euthanasia as legal if the patient consents. WRONG. Active euthanasia is never legal in India regardless of consent. Involuntary and voluntary active euthanasia are both illegal.
"Right to die" is NOT a Fundamental Right — the SC in Gian Kaur (1996) expressly rejected this. Only "right to die with dignity" (= right to refuse futile treatment in terminal/PVS cases) is protected under Article 21 (Common Cause 2018). These are legally distinct.
The petition to withdraw Aruna Shanbaug's life support (filed by Pinki Virani) was rejected by the SC — KEM nurses who cared for her opposed it. The case was significant for recognising the principle, not for granting euthanasia in that case. Shanbaug died naturally in 2015.
Pre-2023: Yes, required Judicial Magistrate. Post-January 2023 modification: No. Now only notarisation or Gazetted Officer attestation needed. Many questions use the old framework — always check the year.
The Delhi HC in 2024 (and many old notes) implied a mechanical ventilator is required for passive euthanasia. The SC in Harish Rana 2026 overruled this. CANH (feeding tubes) = medical treatment = CAN be withdrawn. Ventilator is NOT required.
Gian Kaur (1996) — 5-judge bench (upheld S.309 IPC; no right to die). Aruna Shanbaug (2011) — 2-judge bench. Common Cause (2018) — 5-judge Constitution Bench. Harish Rana (2026) — 2-judge bench. Students often mix up the bench sizes.
| Case | Year | Bench | Key Holding |
|---|---|---|---|
| P. Rathinam v. UoI | 1994 | 2-judge | Art.21 includes right to die; S.309 IPC struck down (overruled 1996) |
| Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab | 1996 | 5-judge Constitution Bench | Art.21 does NOT include right to die; S.309 IPC constitutional; P. Rathinam overruled |
| Aruna Shanbaug v. UoI | 2011 | 2-judge | Passive euthanasia recognised; HC oversight mandatory; petition itself rejected |
| Common Cause v. UoI | 2018 | 5-judge Constitution Bench | Right to die with dignity = FR under Art.21; living wills legalised; two-tier medical board system |
| Common Cause Modified Guidelines | Jan 2023 | Constitution Bench | Magistrate attestation removed; notarisation/GO attestation sufficient; timelines for boards |
| Harish Rana v. UoI (2026 INSC 222) | March 11, 2026 | 2-judge (Pardiwala + Viswanathan) | First implementation; CANH = medical treatment; ventilator not required; Parliament urged to legislate |
| Term | One-Line Definition |
|---|---|
| Euthanasia | Deliberate act to end a terminally ill person's life to relieve suffering |
| Living Will / AMD | Advance directive specifying end-of-life wishes; legalised 2018, simplified 2023 |
| PVS | Persistent Vegetative State — wakefulness without awareness |
| CANH | Clinically Assisted Nutrition & Hydration — PEG/nasogastric tubes = medical treatment (2026 SC) |
| Best Interest Test | "Is prolonging treatment in patient's best interest?" — not "interest to die?" |
| Substituted Judgment | Decision-makers must ask: "What would the patient have wanted?" — patient-centric |
For UPSC Prelims 2026: Harish Rana (March 2026) is a near-certain question. Know the bench (Pardiwala + Viswanathan), the key holding (CANH = medical treatment), and what it changed (first implementation; overruled Delhi HC 2024; Parliament urged to legislate). Also lock in: Common Cause = 5-judge, 2018; right to die with dignity ≠ right to die; active euthanasia NEVER legal in India.