Delhi High Court – Orders
Gurpreet Singh & Ors vs Government Of National Capital Of Delhi … on 18 March, 2026
Author: Jasmeet Singh
Bench: Jasmeet Singh
$~75
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3048/2026
GURPREET SINGH & ORS. ....Petitioners
Through: Mr. RK Sahni, Ms. Pooja Handa, Mr.
Parveen Gambhir, Mr. Ketan Narang, Advs.
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL OF DELHI & ORS.
.....Respondents
Through: Ms Nitika Bhutani, Adv. for R1
Mr. Nitin Kumar, Asst. Manager, Punjab and Sind
Bank, R3
Mr. Vinay Sharma, Adv. for R4 with Mr Naveen
Kumar Tyagi, Branch Head, Axis Bank
Mr. Ankit Raj, SC for PNB, Mr. Ali Mohammed
Khan, Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advs. for R5
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
ORDER
% 18.03.2026
1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India seeking the following prayers:-
“a. Issue an order in favor of the Petitioner No. 1 declaring him as
the lawful legal guardian of the Respondent No.2 in the interest of
justice for her continuing and better treatment and for the purpose
of managing all the saving bank
accounts/FDR’s/Lockers/Investments etc.
b. Allowing the Petitioner to act on behalf of the Respondent No.2
and to represent her when and wherever needed and for completing
the necessary formalities and execution of documents as required.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/03/2026 at 20:41:54
c. Allowing the Petitioner for withdrawing the amounts deposited in
the saving bank accounts of the Respondent No.2 and to encash the
FDR’s deposited in her name and also to have complete access to
the lockers of the Respondent No.2;…”
2. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioner No. 1 is the husband of
the respondent No. 2 (performa respondent) and, petitioner No. 2 and 3 are
their children. On 21.05.2019, respondent No. 2 suffered severe chest pain
and breathlessness and was rushed to the Hospital where while under
observation, she suffered cardiac arrest due to which she fell into coma. On
20.07.2019, she was discharged and her present condition is known as
‘Persistent Vegetative State of Coma’ and her family has been taking care of
her at home.
3. Hence, the present petition seeking the reliefs as reproduced above.
4. This Court has time and again invoked its parens patriae jurisdiction to
appoint legal heir/spouse as the legal guardian. Reliance has been placed upon
the judgment of Professor Alka Acharya v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC
OnLine Del 9690, wherein a Coordinate Bench of this Court, after taking into
consideration the Opinion of the Medical Examination and report of the SDM
(South-West), appointed the wife as the legal guardian of the husband, who
was stated to be in a vegetative/comatose state after suffering from an
“Intracranial Haemorrhage”. The Court in the said judgement laid down the
jurisprudence on parens patriae jurisdiction of this Court to appoint legal
heir/spouse as the legal guardian as under:-
“19. In N.A v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (supra), a coordinate Bench of
this Court took note of the legal vacuum in the extant legal
regime viz. appointment of legal guardian for an individual inThis is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/03/2026 at 20:41:54
vegetative/comatose and held as under:–
“13. This Court notices that such persons who are in a vegetative
state are unable to take decisions for themselves, however, there is
no mechanism provided in law under the RPWD Act, 2016 or
the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 for appointment of guardians to
take care of such persons and their assets. This legal vacuum was
considered in detail by this Court in the judgment dated
29th October, 2021 passed in W.P. (C) 1271/2020
titled S.D. v. GNCTD where this Court had exercised parens
patriae jurisdiction while constituting a guardianship committee.
The relevant part of the said judgment is as under:
“215. …
216. While exercising parens patriae jurisdiction, Courts used
to apply the principle of “best interest of the individual”.
However, with the introduction of the UNCRPD, “best
interest” of the individual has to be in the light of the “wills
and preferences” of the individual. The same could be
determined by means of advance directives and in the absence
of advance directives, facts and circumstances which point
towards the wishes/intent of the concerned person. Thus, the
“wills and preferences” of the mentally ill person have to be
considered by the Court in deciding the manner in which care
is to be given.
217. …. The MHA-2017 has no provision in respect of
management of financial affairs, appointment of guardians or
the manner in which the moveable/immovable property of the
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/03/2026 at 20:41:54
mentally ill person is to be taken care of. Thus there is a clear
statutory vacuum.
218. …
219. In any event, this Court is of the opinion that the solemn
nature of the said jurisdiction having been repeatedly
recognised by the Supreme Court, the question as to which
Court has to exercise it and in what manner is one of mere
procedure. So long as the “wills and preferences” of the
mentally ill person and the other factors set out in the rules are
borne in mind by the Court exercising parens patriae
jurisdiction, it cannot be held that the High Court exercising
power under Article 226 is denuded of power in view of the
provisions of the RPWD-2016 Act or the Rules thereunder.
220. Thus, both, while exercising jurisdiction under Article
226 and even in terms of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the
RPWD-2016 and under the MHA-2017, this Court has the
power to entertain the present petition seeking appointment of
a guardian. (ii) Who can be the guardian/nominated
representative? (Legal Position)
xxxxxxxx
14. Subsequent to the decision in S.D. v. GNCTD (Supra) the
Bombay High Court in W.P. (C) 1266/2021 titled Lubina
Mohamed Agarwal v. Union of India decided on 13th December,
2021 has also considered the same issue and has observed as
under:
“12. …
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/03/2026 at 20:41:54
13. Overriding all these is the doctrine of parens patriae, one
that was discussed by the Supreme Court in Aruna
Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India, and more recently
in Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. The Supreme Court has said
that the parens patriae doctrine may be invoked in a
Constitutional Court in exercise of its jurisdiction wherever
the welfare of the person, be it a child or a person who is
mentally ill, needs protection. The doctrine is invoked to meet
the ends of justice. It is not to be applied blindly in every case,
but in exceptional cases where the subject of the petition is not
mentally or physically capable (or is of a very young age) and
where there is no other parent or legal guardian. This is
perhaps a reversal of the usual guardian-and-ward doctrine.
There, a birth parent is the natural guardian of the person and
property of the minor child. But reverse situations have often
come to court, where it is the parent who needs care from the
child. The law does not explicitly or automatically recognise
the child as the legal guardian of the parent, and it is for this
purpose that the parents parens patriae principle is invoked to
provide precisely such relief. …
xxxxxxxx
15. We also chose to reproduce paragraphs 17.1 to 17.3 of the
decision in Salgaonkar below:
“17.1. In that case it was held that when a person is in coma or in a
comatose condition or in a vegetative state, it cannot be construed
that such a person is a physically challenged person or a mentallyThis is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/03/2026 at 20:41:54
challenged person as is understood under the relevant statutes. Nor
such a person can be construed to be a minor for the purpose of
appointment of guardian. In the circumstances it was held that
statutes like the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Mental
Healthcare Act, 2017 etc. would not applicable to persons in a
comatose condition or in a vegetative state. It was also held that
there is no legislation in India relating to appointment of guardians
to patients lying in comatose or vegetative state.
xxxxxxxx
20. Further in Shobha Gopalkrishnan v. State of Kerala, 2019 SCC
OnLine Ker 739 a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, after
addressing the said issue at length, laid down certain
procedures/guidelines for dealing with the same, till proper
legislation is formulated in regards thereto. The relevant portion of
the said judgment reads as under:–
“42. Considering the role of this Court, jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India springs up, when no
remedy is provided under any Statute to persons like patients in
‘comatose state’. It is something like ‘parens patriae’ jurisdiction.
A reference to the verdict in Nothman v. Barnet London Borough
Council, [[1978] 1 WLR 220] (at 228) is also relevant. In such
cases, it is often said, Courts have to do what the Parliament
would have done. A reference to the verdict in Surjit Singh
Karla v. Union of India [(1991) 2 SCC 87 explaining the principle
of ’causes omissus’ is also brought to the notice of this Court; to
the effect that if it is an accidental omission, court can supply/fillThis is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/03/2026 at 20:41:54
up the gap. This Court however does not find it appropriate to
“re-write” the provision, as it is within the exclusive domain of the
Parliament. This is more so, when the relevant statutes like Mental
Health Act, 1987 and PWD Act, 1995 came to be repealed, on
introducing the new legislations, such as the Mental Healthcare
Act 2017 and The Rights of persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 in
conformity with the mandate of U.N. Convention, 2006. This
Court does not say anything whether any amendment is necessary,
also in respect of the National Trust Act for the Welfare of Persons
with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple
Disabilities Act, 1999 (National Trust Act, 1999) with reference to
the U.N. Convention 2006. It is for the Government to consider
and take appropriate steps in this regard, as it is never for the
Court to encroach into the forbidden field. This Court would only
like to make it clear that, in so far as the case of a patient lying in
‘comatose state’ is not covered by any of the statutes, (as
discussed above), for appointment of a Guardian, the petitioners
are justified in approaching this court seeking to invoke the power
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is declared
accordingly.
43. Coming to the incidental aspects; since no specific provision is
available in any Statutes to deal with the procedure for such
appointment of Guardian to a victim lying in ‘comatose state’, it is
necessary to stipulate some ‘Guidelines’, based on the inputs
gathered by this Court from different corners, as suggested by the
learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned GovernmentThis is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/03/2026 at 20:41:54
Pleader and also by the learned Amicus Curiae, till the field is
taken over by proper legislation in this regard. This Court finds it
appropriate to fix the following norms/guidelines as a temporary
measure:
i) petitioner/s seeking for appointment of Guardian to a person
lying in comatose state shall disclose the particulars of the
property, both movable and immovable, owned and possessed by
the patient lying in comatose state.
ii) The condition of the person lying in comatose state shall be got
ascertained by causing him to be examined by a duly constituted
Medical Board, of whom one shall definitely be a qualified
Neurologist.
iii) A simultaneous visit of the person lying in comatose state, at
his residence, shall be caused to be made through the Revenue
authorities, not below the rank of a Tahsildar and a report shall be
procured as to all the relevant facts and figures, including the
particulars of the close relatives, their financial conditions and
such other aspects.
iv) The person seeking appointment as Guardian of a person lying
in comatose state shall be a close relative (spouse or children) and
all the persons to be classified as legal heirs in the due course
shall be in the party array. In the absence of the suitable close
relative, a public official such as ‘Social Welfare officer’ can be
sought to be appointed as a Guardian to the person lying in
‘comatose state’.
v) The person applying for appointment as Guardian shall be one
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/03/2026 at 20:41:54
who is legally competent to be appointed as a Guardian
vi) The appointment of a Guardian as above shall only be in
respect of the specific properties and bank accounts/such other
properties of the person lying in comatose state; to be indicated in
the order appointing the Guardian and the Guardian so appointed
shall act always in the best interest of the person lying in
‘comatose state’.
vii) The person appointed as Guardian shall file periodical
reports in every six months before the Registrar General of this
Court, which shall contain the particulars of all transactions taken
by the Guardian in respect of the person and property of the
patient in comatose state; besides showing the utilization of the
funds received and spent by him/her.
viii) The Registrar General shall cause to maintain a separate
Register with regard to appointment of Guardian to persons lying
in ‘comatose state’ and adequate provision to keep the Reports
filed by the Guardian appointed by this Court.
ix) It is open for this Court to appoint a person as Guardian to the
person lying in comatose state, either temporarily or for a
specified period or permanently, as found to be appropriate.
x) If there is any misuse of power or misappropriation of funds or
nonextension of requisite care and protection or support with
regard to the treatment and other requirements of the person lying
in comatose state, it is open to bring up the matter for further
consideration of this Court to re-open and revoke the power, to
take appropriate action against the person concerned, who was
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/03/2026 at 20:41:54
appointed as the Guardian and also to appoint another
person/public authority/Social Welfare Officer (whose official
status is equal to the post of District Probation Officer) as the
Guardian.
xi) It shall be for the Guardian appointed by the Court to meet the
obligations/duties similar to those as described under Section 15
of the National Trust Act and to maintain and submit the accounts
similar to those contained in Section 16.
xii) The Guardian so appointed shall bring the appointment to the
notice of the Social Welfare Officer having jurisdiction in the
place of residence, along with a copy of the verdict appointing him
as Guardian, enabling the Social Welfare Officer of the area to
visit the person lying in ‘comatose state’ at random and to submit
a report, if so necessitated, calling for further action/interference
of this Court.
xiii) The transactions in respect of the property of the person lying
in ‘comatose state’, by the Guardian, shall be strictly in
accordance with the relevant provisions of law. If the Guardian
appointed is found to be abusing the power or neglects or acts
contrary to the best interest of the person lying in ‘comatose state’,
any relative or next friend may apply to this Court for removal of
such Guardian.
xiv) The Guardian appointed shall seek and obtain specific
permission from this Court, if he/she intends to transfer the person
lying in comatose state from the jurisdiction of this Court to
another State or Country, whether it be for availing better
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/03/2026 at 20:41:54
treatment or otherwise.””
(Emphasis added)
5. In the present case, when the matter was listed on 11.03.2026, this
Court directed the SDM of the concerned area to verify the medical condition
of the wife of the petitioner No. 1 i.e., respondent No. 2 and submit a report.
6. The report of the SDM (South west) in compliance of the order dated
11.03.2026 has been handed over in the Court. A perusal of the same shows
that the SDM has verified that the wife of the petitioner No. 1 i.e., respondent
No. 2, is bed ridden since 2019 and since 2019 has been in the same state. One
attendant and one nurse have been hired since 2019 and are being paid Rs. 1
lakh per month by petitioner No. 1. Further, it has been stated that two
independent witness/ neighbours have confirmed devoted care and there no
conflict of interest of litigation has been noticed.
7. Since the wife of the petitioner No. 1 i.e., Smt. Ramneet Kaur
(respondent No. 2) is in ‘Persistent Vegetative State of Coma’, the petition is
allowed and it is directed as under:-
a. The petitioner No.1 i.e., Mr. Gurpreet Singh, (husband of Smt.
Ramneet Kaur) is appointed as the legal guardian of Smt. Ramneet
Kaur i.e., respondent No. 2, for the purpose of managing all her
saving bank accounts/FDR’s/Lockers/Investments etc.
b. The petitioner No.1 i.e., Mr. Gurpreet Singh, (husband of Smt.
Ramneet Kaur) is permitted to act on behalf of Smt. Ramneet Kaur
i.e., respondent No. 2, and to represent her wherever needed and for
completing the necessary formalities and execution of documents
as required.
c. The petitioner No.1 i.e., Mr. Gurpreet Singh, (husband of Smt.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/03/2026 at 20:41:54
Ramneet Kaur) is permitted to withdraw the amounts deposited in
the saving bank accounts of Smt. Ramneet Kaur i.e., respondent
No.2, and to encash the FDR’s deposited in her name and also to
have complete access to the lockers of the respondent No.2.
8. The report of the SDM (South west) handed over in the Court is taken
on record.
JASMEET SINGH, J
MARCH 18, 2026/AS
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/03/2026 at 20:41:54