Guardianship Claim By Foreign National Cannot Exist; Upto Local Level Committee To Evaluate Circumstances: Delhi High Court

The High Court was considering an intra-court appeal challenging an impugned order of the Single Judge dismissing a Writ Petition instituted by the Appellants.

The Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia said, “The aforesaid aspects were considered by this Court in Sunil Podar (supra) wherein the constitutional validity of Rule 17 of the Rules has been upheld and, accordingly, we are of the opinion that any claim of guardianship by a person who is not an Indian national cannot exist.”

“The judgment in Sunil Podar (supra) specifically provides that local level committee, in such circumstances, shall examine and evaluate the circumstances and surroundings of the person with disabilities and that the committee shall also advise adoption of such further measures as may be warranted bearing in mind the welfare, overall health and well-being of the person concerned. The court in the said matter had also left it open to the person claiming the guardianship who was not an Indian citizen, to nominate an Indian citizen who may be appointed as statutory guardian of the person suffering from disabilities with special needs”, it added.

Advocate Arjeet Gaur represented the Appellant while Advocate Shashi Pratap Singh represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The appellant sought a direction to the Respondents to appoint the first Appellant (sister) as guardian of the person and property of the second Appellant on the ground that the second Appellant was suffering from Cerebral Palsy with Dolico Cephaly with seizures with Mental Retardation and 100% Locomotor Disability from birth. It was claimed that the first Appellant is the sister of the second Appellant and the parents of the second Appellant had already passed away.

The Single Judge relied upon the provisions of Rule 17(1)(iii)(a) of the National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Rules, 2000 (Rules) and concluded that since the first Appellant was not an Indian citizen, the direction sought in the Writ Petition could not be issued.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the Appellants are not citizens of India and the first appellant was a citizen of New Zealand. Referring to the judgment in Sunil Podar v. National Trust for the Welfare of Person with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities and Anr., (2023) wherein the constitutional validity of Rule 17 was upheld, the Bench held that any claim of guardianship by a person who is not an Indian national cannot exist.

Considering that the fate of the second Appellant could not be left in a lurch, the Bench referred to observations made in Paragraph Nos. 42, 43 and 44 of the judgment in Sunil Podar (supra) whereby the Local Level Committee was asked to examine and evaluate the circumstances and surroundings of the person with disabilities in question forthwith. The Court had also left it open to the petitioner to nominate an Indian citizen as the statutory guardian of the son with special needs. The statutory guardian acting together with the petitioner was ordered to be responsible for the discharge of all statutory obligations that stood placed under the Act.

Thus, without interfering with the Impugned Order, the Bench permitted that in case the first Appellant follows the procedure as provided in Paragraph Nos. 42, 43 and 44 of the judgment in Sunil Podar (supra), all requisite actions as may be warranted should be taken by the local level committee.

Cause Title: Bhavna Gulati & Anr. v. Government of NCT of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:5820-DB)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocates Arjeet Gaur, Jasbir Balhara, Prince Sharma

Respondent: Advocates Shashi Pratap Singh, Shagun Sabharwal, Anamika Tyagi, Laqshiya Saluja

Click here to read/download Order