Active vs. Passive Euthanasia
The Legal and Ethical Distinction
The distinction between active and passive euthanasia carries significant legal and ethical weight. Active euthanasia involves a deliberate act — administering a substance or intervention — to cause death, and remains illegal under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as culpable homicide. Passive euthanasia involves the withholding or withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, allowing natural death to occur from the underlying condition. The Harish Rana judgment refines this further by: (i) classifying CANH (tube-feeding) as "medical treatment" that can be withdrawn, not "basic care" that must be maintained; and (ii) replacing the term "passive euthanasia" with "Withdrawal or Withholding of Medical Treatment" (WWMT) to avoid the moral weight of the word "euthanasia" and to more precisely capture what is legally permitted.
- Active euthanasia: remains impermissible in India; falls under Section 299/300 IPC (culpable homicide/murder).
- Passive euthanasia (now WWMT): permissible under Article 21 with prescribed procedural safeguards.
- CANH classification as "medical treatment": significant because it extends WWMT applicability to a wider class of interventions beyond ventilator support.
- The terminological shift also aligns Indian law closer to international bioethics standards (e.g., the terminology used by medical bodies in the UK and Netherlands).
- Palliative care as the post-withdrawal modality: the court's direction to admit Harish Rana to AIIMS's Palliative Care department highlights that WWMT is accompanied by dignity-preserving care, not abandonment.
● Tracked since March 11, 2026 · last seen March 24, 2026 · updates as the daily brief publishes