Facts: The applicant, Harish Rana, suffered a severe traumatic brain injury in 2013 after falling from the fourth floor of a building. Since the accident, he remained in a Persistent Vegetative State (PVS) with 100% permanent disability and quadriplegia. He was kept alive through Clinically Assisted Nutrition and Hydration (CANH) administered via a Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) tube. After 13 years of unsuccessful treatment and a static neurological condition, his parents approached the court seeking the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. Two medical boards (Primary and Secondary) unanimously concluded that his condition was irreversible and that continuing CANH offered no therapeutic benefit and merely prolonged his agony.Procedural Posture: The applicant's parents first approached the Delhi High Court, which dismissed the writ petition on the grounds that the applicant was not on mechanical life support and could sustain himself without external aid. Aggrieved, the parents filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court disposed of the SLP with directions for home care but granted liberty to move the court again. The parents subsequently filed the present Miscellaneous Application (MA) seeking the constitution of medical boards and a declaration for the withdrawal of treatment.Issue: (1) Does the administration of Clinically Assisted Nutrition and Hydration (CANH) qualify as "medical treatment" amenable to withdrawal? (2) What is the scope of the "best interest of the patient" principle in cases of non-voluntary passive euthanasia? (3) Should the medical treatment of the applicant be withdrawn based on these principles?Holding: (1) Yes, CANH administered via medical devices is "medical treatment". (2) The "best interest" principle is a holistic, patient-centric evaluation incorporating medical futility and the substituted judgment of what the patient would have wanted. (3) Yes, the withdrawal of CANH is in the applicant's best interest.Reasoning: The Court reasoned that CANH involves complex medical protocols, technology, and clinical supervision, distinguishing it from basic care like spoon-feeding. Relying on "Common Cause (2018)", the Court affirmed that the "right to die with dignity" is part of Article 21. For incompetent patients, the state's interest in preserving life becomes subservient to individual dignity when treatment becomes futile and invasive. The Court applied a "balance sheet approach", weighing the burdens of prolonged vegetative existence against the absence of any therapeutic gain. Since the medical boards and family concurred that recovery was impossible and treatment was merely procrastinating death, the Court sanctioned the withdrawal of treatment under a supervised palliative care plan.