India, March 11 -- At the core of the right to life sits the right to dignity. To live with dignity is to retain, for as long as possible, the sovereign territory of the self. Autonomy over that life, that body, in the absence of criminality, is hewed into this very right. In a landmark decision on Wednesday, the Supreme Court made the difficult adjudication in a case where that life, in any meaningful sense of that word, has already departed. The top court allowed passive euthanasia for a 32-year-old man who has remained in a permanent vegetative state for more than a decade, while also laying down safeguards and procedural guidelines to regulate such decisions in the future. Delivering separate but concurring opinions, the bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan held that withdrawing life-sustaining support in a palliative care setting would be in the patient's best interest. In many ways, this is the logical progression of the court's groundbreaking recognition in 2018 of the right of individuals to die with dignity - a verdict that permitted the removal of life-support systems for the terminally ill, and allowed individuals to decide against artificial life support by creating a living will. The solemn moment also underlines just how far jurisprudence has travelled since the sombre trial of Mumbai nurse Aruna Shanbaug, whose decades-long suffering made a powerful argument for passive euthanasia. In a country rife with inequalities such as India, the possibility of misusing such a provision - especially against the elderly and the vulnerable - is always present. The court is correct in proceeding carefully and building multiple layers of safeguards - medical boards, judicial oversight, and several checks. But it has shown foresight and humanity in foregrounding compassion. The Centre should heed the Court's recommendation that it bring about a comprehensive legislation in this regard....