Delhi High Court Invokes Parens Patriae Jurisdiction To Appoint Wife As Legal Guardian Of Husband In Persistent Vegetative State
Invoking its parens patriae jurisdiction, the High Court held that in the absence of a statutory mechanism governing guardianship of persons in a comatose or vegetative state, constitutional courts are empowered to appoint a legal guardian to safeguard the welfare of such individuals.
Justice Sachin Datta, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has appointed a wife as the legal guardian of her husband, who has been in a persistent vegetative state following a severe intracranial haemorrhage, holding that such an appointment was necessary for his welfare and management of his medical and financial affairs.
The Court was hearing a writ petition seeking guardianship in respect of a person stated to be in a comatose condition, where no statutory framework exists to govern the appointment of a guardian.
The matter was decided by Justice Sachin Datta, who examined the medical condition of the patient, the familial relationship of the petitioner, and the legal vacuum surrounding guardianship of persons in a vegetative state and concluded that “appointment of a legal guardian is warranted”.
Advocate Lzabeer Ahmad represented the petitioner, while Advocate Nitika Bhutani represented the Government of NCT of Delhi.
Background
The petition was filed by the wife of the patient, who was stated to have suffered a massive intracranial haemorrhage in February 2025. It thereafter remained in a persistent vegetative and unconscious state, requiring continuous medical support, including tracheostomy and tube feeding.
The petitioner sought appointment as the legal guardian of her husband in respect of all matters relating to his estate, including movable and immovable properties, bank accounts, investments, and other financial affairs, to meet his ongoing medical and daily care requirements.
Pursuant to earlier directions of the Court, a Medical Board constituted by Govind Ballabh Pant Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research examined the patient and certified that he was in a persistent vegetative state with 100% disability and was unfit to make any decisions on his own
The concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate also conducted an inquiry, verifying the petitioner’s marital relationship, financial capacity, disclosed assets, and absence of any conflict of interest, and reported that the petitioner was a suitable person to be appointed as guardian
Court’s Observation
The Delhi High Court noted that the medical opinion unequivocally established that the patient was incapable of undertaking any independent decisions and required constant care and supervision. The Court further took note of the SDM’s report, which confirmed that the petitioner was the legally wedded wife and that there were no other Class-I legal heirs apart from the couple’s two children.
The Court observed that both children had filed affidavits of no objection and had also appeared before the Court, expressly consenting to the appointment of their mother as the legal guardian.
The Court placed reliance on precedents recognising the power of constitutional courts to exercise parens patriae jurisdiction in cases involving persons in a comatose or vegetative state. Reference was made to the decision in N.A. & Ors. v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors., wherein the Delhi High Court held that in the absence of a statutory framework governing guardianship of persons in a vegetative state, the High Court is empowered to appoint a legal guardian to manage medical treatment, finances and property of such persons.
The Court also relied upon the decision of the Kerala High Court in Shobha Gopalkrishnan and Ors. v. State of Kerala, which recognised that courts can appoint a guardian for persons in a comatose condition to safeguard their welfare and property interests, subject to appropriate safeguards.
The Court concluded that such jurisdiction is to be exercised to protect the welfare and interests of persons who are unable to protect themselves, particularly where no alternative statutory remedy is available.
Conclusion
Holding that the patient had remained in a vegetative and comatose state since February 2025 and was incapable of managing his affairs, the Delhi High Court concluded that the appointment of a legal guardian was warranted in his best interests.
The Court allowed the writ petition and appointed the petitioner as the legal guardian of her husband, authorising her to make decisions relating to his medical treatment, daily care, finances, and management of his movable and immovable assets.
Cause Title: Professor Alka Acharya v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:12041)
Appearances
Petitioner: Lzabeer Ahmad, Advocate; Kartikeya Sharma, Advocate
Respondents: Nitika Bhutani, Advocate (for GNCTD)