Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Mr. Manish Jain, Mr. Vikas Kumar Verma, Ms. Chelsi, Mr. Anchal, Mr. Rajesh Kumar and Mr. Shanky Jain
For the Respondents: Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, Mr. Kushagra Kumar, Mr. Abhinav Bhardwaj, Mr. Satya Ranjan Swain, Mr. Kautilya Birat, Udit Malik, Mr. Vishal Chanda

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the judgment on euthanasia:

Legal Status of Euthanasia * Active euthanasia is impermissible and not covered under the right to life (Article 21), even if the objective is to relieve pain or suffering (!) (!) . * Passive euthanasia is lawful and legally permissible under strict conditions, involving the withdrawal of life-saving treatment by a competent patient or a decision made for an incompetent patient (!) (!) . * The "right to life" under Article 21 includes the right to die with dignity, encompassing a dignified procedure of death up to the point of natural life (!) .

Definitions and Types * Euthanasia is defined as the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable disease or in an irreversible coma, though the term has no universally accepted philosophical core (!) . * Legally, euthanasia is recognized as two distinct types: * Active Euthanasia: Causing death by administering lethal injections or drugs; generally impermissible except in specific jurisdictions like Canada and certain US states (!) . * Passive Euthanasia: Occurring when medical practitioners do not provide or withdraw life-sustaining treatment (e.g., disconnecting ventilators or feeding tubes), where the death is attributed to the underlying condition rather than the omission (!) . * Other classifications include voluntary (patient requests), non-voluntary (patient cannot express views), and involuntary (patient's wishes ignored), though the legal framework focuses on active vs. passive (!) (!) (!) (!) .

Criteria for Passive Euthanasia * Passive euthanasia is permissible when a person is only kept alive mechanically (e.g., via heart-lung machines or ventilators) and there is no plausible possibility of recovery, especially if the condition has persisted for a long period (e.g., several years) (!) (!) . * It applies to cases where the patient is in a Persistent Vegetative State (PVS) and is "dead" in a clinical sense, though this differs from brain death where the brain stem continues to function (!) (!) . * A decision to withdraw life support must be taken bona fide in the best interest of the patient by parents, spouse, close relatives, or doctors acting as next friends (!) . * Such a decision requires approval from the High Court to prevent misuse, such as inheritance fraud by relatives (!) (!) .

Application to the Present Case * The petitioner, who suffered head injuries resulting in a Permanent Vegetative State and Quadriplegia, is not being kept alive mechanically and is able to sustain himself without external aid (!) . * Since the petitioner is not on life support and is not terminally ill, the request for passive euthanasia is legally untenable (!) . * Consequently, the court denied the request to constitute a Medical Board for passive euthanasia and dismissed the Writ Petition (!) (!) .