The Supreme Court upheld the right to die with dignity in the case of Harish Rana, a 32-year-old man who had been in a persistent vegetative state for nearly 13 years. The Court permitted withdrawal of Clinically Assisted Nutrition and Hydration (CANH) and directed that he be transferred to AIIMS Delhi.
The issue is important for Indian Constitution and governance because the right to die with dignity is linked to Article 21, which protects life and personal dignity. In the Common Cause case, 2018, the Supreme Court recognised this constitutional principle. The Harish Rana case applies the same idea to a patient who had remained for years in a condition where he could not eat or take fluids independently and was receiving nutrition and hydration through medical support. It is useful for both fundamental rights and current-affairs preparation.
For examination preparation, this development connects fundamental rights, judicial interpretation, medical ethics and medical-care arrangements. In prelims, questions may focus on Article 21, the Common Cause judgment, persistent vegetative state, and withdrawal of CANH. In mains, the issue can be used to discuss the scope of the right to life, individual dignity, the role of doctors, and decision-making by medical boards. It should therefore be studied not merely as a health-related news item, but as a Constitution and governance example.