1. Court’s decision
The Delhi High Court has appointed the wife of a man lying in a long-term vegetative state as his legal guardian, invoking its inherent parens patriae jurisdiction to fill a statutory vacuum. The Court noted that no Indian legislation—including the RPWD Act, Mental Healthcare Act, or National Trust Act—provides a mechanism for appointing a guardian for an adult who is neither mentally ill nor a minor, but is completely incapacitated due to chronic neurological damage.
Relying on authoritative High Court and Supreme Court precedents, the Court gave the wife authority to take medical, financial, and property-related decisions on behalf of her husband, and allowed her to handle his movable and immovable assets, including shares in two Delhi properties, bank accounts, PPF, LIC policy and government bonds. The Court also permitted her to represent him in pending partition litigation concerning family property.
The writ petition was disposed of with detailed directions safeguarding the welfare of the incapacitated individual.
2. Facts
The petition was filed by the wife and two adult sons of a man who, since 2023, has been bedridden in a vegetative state following recurrent intracranial haemorrhage, quadriplegia, multiple contractures, epilepsy and other serious complications. A disability certificate issued in October 2024 recorded 90% permanent disability and a chronic neurological condition.
The wife has been managing all medical and daily expenses, depleting personal savings. She sought legal authority to manage and liquidate assets owned by her husband, including:
• his share in a Model Town property,
• his share in a Bhai Parmanand Colony property,
• a PPF account,
• an IDFC Bank account,
• an LIC policy, and
• a floating-rate savings bond.
One of the immovable properties is embroiled in a long-standing partition dispute. The wife has been representing her incapacitated husband in those proceedings, but lacked formal legal authority.
Applications under the National Trust Act were rejected on grounds that his disability category is not covered. A guardianship petition in the District Court remained stalled on maintainability. Earlier directions by the High Court resulted in constitution of a Medical Board, which visited the residence and confirmed the severity of the condition.
The Medical Board found that while he was conscious, he could not respond to verbal commands, could not comprehend, and lacked orientation to time, place or person—functionally incapable of decision-making.
3. Issues
The High Court considered:
- Whether Constitutional Courts can appoint a legal guardian for a person lying in a vegetative or comatose state when statutory law provides no mechanism.
- Whether the wife could be appointed guardian for medical, financial, property and litigation-related decisions.
- Whether safeguards and procedural norms must accompany such an appointment.
4. Petitioners’ arguments
The petitioners argued that the incapacitated individual cannot make any decisions relating to treatment, assets, litigation or daily needs. They pointed out that the National Trust Act does not apply to his disability category, the District Court had raised maintainability objections, and the Mental Healthcare Act and RPWD Act provide no workable guardianship mechanism for vegetative-state patients.
Reliance was placed on judgments such as N.A., S.D. v. GNCTD, Shobha Gopalakrishnan, Sairabanu Mohammed Rafi, Philomena Leo Lobo, Uma Mittal and other High Court decisions that recognized parens patriae jurisdiction to protect incapacitated adults in a legal vacuum.
The wife and both sons jointly sought her appointment as guardian, with the sons submitting written no-objection.
5. Respondents’ arguments
The Union of India, represented through its counsel, accepted that statutory pathways are limited and that courts can invoke parens patriae jurisdiction in exceptional cases per Shafin Jahan. The State authorities did not contest either the medical findings or the eligibility of the wife.
The Medical Board’s findings were placed before the Court, leaving no doubt that the individual lacked all functional capacity.
6. Analysis of the law
The Court undertook an extensive review of the jurisprudence governing guardianship of incapacitated adults. It noted:
• No Indian statute provides for guardianship of adults in vegetative or comatose states.
• The RPWD Act provides only limited guardianship and contemplates mechanisms that are not fully functional.
• The Mental Healthcare Act provides for “nominated representatives”, but only for persons with mental illness—not those with neurological catastrophic injuries.
• The National Trust Act applies to a narrow set of disabilities, excluding conditions like quadriplegia caused by stroke.
Because of this “clear legal vacuum,” Constitutional Courts across India—including Kerala, Bombay, Madras, Allahabad and Delhi—have invoked parens patriae jurisdiction to protect incapacitated adults.
The Court cited N.A., S.D. v. GNCTD, Vandana Tyagi, Sairabanu, Philomena Leo Lobo, Vijay Salgaonkar, Uma Mittal, Lubina Agarwal and others, and reiterated that Article 226 jurisdiction permits intervention to prevent injustice, especially when no statutory remedy exists.
The Court noted that guardianship can be granted to family members—particularly spouses and children—when they act in the best interests and there is no conflict of interest.
7. Precedent analysis
The Court analysed extensive precedents:
N.A. v. GNCTD (Delhi High Court)
Recognised statutory vacuum; held that High Courts can invoke parens patriae to appoint guardians for vegetative-state individuals. Cited in depth.
S.D. v. GNCTD
Explained that absence of designated authorities under RPWD Act makes High Court intervention necessary; formulated “wills and preferences” framework; permitted guardianship committee.
Shobha Gopalakrishnan (Kerala HC)
Laid down detailed 14-point guidelines for guardianship of comatose patients; affirmed court’s power under Article 226.
Sairabanu Mohammed Rafi (Madras HC)
Allowed wife to handle immovable property of comatose husband.
Philomena Leo Lobo (Bombay HC)
Permitted wife to manage husband’s financial affairs.
Vijay Ramchandra Salgaonkar (Bombay HC)
Appointed husband as guardian of wife with dementia, subject to monitoring.
Uma Mittal (Allahabad HC)
Allowed wife to manage business interests of comatose husband.
These precedents affirm the consistent, nationwide recognition of High Court authority to protect incapacitated adults through guardianship appointments.
8. Court’s reasoning
The Court accepted the Medical Board report confirming that the individual was conscious but completely unable to comprehend, communicate or make decisions. The Court held that the extreme medical condition warranted protective judicial intervention.
The Court emphasised:
• The statutory vacuum cannot be a basis to deny relief.
• Parens patriae jurisdiction must be exercised sparingly but decisively when welfare of an incapacitated adult demands intervention.
• The wife is the closest caregiver, supported by both children; no competing claims exist.
• The guardianship powers must enable medical decisions, financial management and property dealings, all in the best interests of the incapacitated individual.
The Court therefore appointed the wife as guardian and listed specific movable and immovable assets she is authorized to manage.
9. Conclusion
The High Court appointed the wife as the legal guardian of the incapacitated individual, authorizing her to:
• Make all medical and caregiving decisions;
• Manage daily care, expenses and finances;
• Administer and deal with his 1/8th share in the Model Town property;
• Handle his 1/4th share in the Bhai Parmanand Colony property;
• Operate his PPF, bank account, LIC policy and savings bond;
• Represent him in ongoing litigation, including the partition suit pending before the ADJ and related High Court proceedings.
The petition was disposed of in these terms.
10. Implications
This judgment advances a rapidly evolving area of Indian jurisprudence—guardianship for adults in vegetative states—affirming that Constitutional Courts can bridge statutory gaps to protect incapacitated individuals. It confirms that parens patriae jurisdiction remains a vital tool when modern disability laws fail to address real-world situations involving catastrophic neurological injuries.
The ruling is particularly significant for families struggling to access bank accounts, manage property, or pursue court proceedings on behalf of a vegetative-state relative. It reinforces the trend towards humane, family-centred guardianship models while ensuring judicial oversight where necessary.
Case Law References
N.A. v. GNCTD — Delhi HC recognized legal vacuum; permitted guardianship of vegetative-state individual under parens patriae.
S.D. v. GNCTD — Detailed analysis of RPWD and Mental Healthcare Acts; allowed High Court to act where designated authorities absent.
Shobha Gopalakrishnan (Kerala HC) — Set out 14-point guidelines; affirmed Article 226 jurisdiction for comatose patients.
Sairabanu Mohammed Rafi (Madras HC) — Wife permitted to sell/comanage husband’s properties.
Philomena Leo Lobo (Bombay HC) — Wife given control over husband’s financial affairs.
Vijay Ramchandra Salgaonkar (Bombay HC) — Husband appointed guardian; monitoring mandated.
Uma Mittal (Allahabad HC) — Wife appointed guardian to protect husband’s business interests.
Vandana Tyagi (Delhi HC) — Adopted Kerala guidelines; appointed children as guardians.
FAQs
1. Can a High Court appoint a guardian for an adult in a vegetative or comatose state?
Yes. When statutory law does not provide a remedy, High Courts may appoint a guardian under parens patriae jurisdiction to protect incapacitated adults.
2. What powers can a guardian receive in such cases?
Courts may permit the guardian to manage medical decisions, finances, bank accounts, property, litigation, and daily care in the incapacitated person’s best interests.
3. Are existing disability laws sufficient for guardianship of vegetative-state patients?
No. The RPWD Act, Mental Healthcare Act and National Trust Act do not address guardianship for those in vegetative/comatose conditions, creating a legal vacuum the courts fill.