Full Judgment Text
$~154
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5294/2026
Date of decision: 20.04.2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
GURPREET KAUR MAINI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Tushar Agarwal and Mr. Arun
Kumar, Advs
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sameer Vashisht, SC for GNCTD
with Mr. Aryaman Vachher, Adv.
R-3 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
J U D G E M E N T
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 25975/2026 & CM APPL. 25976/2026
1. Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Applications stand disposed of.
W.P.(C) 5294/2026
3. The instant petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:
“I. Issue an appropriate writ in the form of order/direction directing the
Principal District & Sessions Judge, South, Saket Court, Delhi to accept
the medical report of Shri Jivtesh Singh Maini issued by his regular
private medical practitioner, in compliance of the order dated
31.05.2024 in MHA no. 01/2024; or
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:20.04.2026
19:31:49
II. Issue an appropriate writ in the form of order/direction directing the
Prinicpal District & Sessions Judge, South, Saket Court, Delhi to modify
the order dated 31.05.2024 in MHA no.1/2024 to the extent of allowing
the submission of medical report of Shri Jivtesh Singh Maini issued by
his regular private medical practitioner; or
III. Issue an appropriate writ in the form of order/direction directing the
director of Institute of Human Behaviour & Allied Science(IHBAS) to
appoint/designate a doctor to visit and examine Shri Jivtesh Singh Maini
once in every three months at his residence and issue a medical report
about medical condition of Shri Jivtesh Singh Maini for the purpose of 35
submission before the court in compliance of the order dated 31.05.2024
in MHA no. 01/2024; or
IV. Pass any other order/direction that this hon’ble court may deem fit in
the interest of justice.”
4. The petition assails the insistence of Ld. Principal District & Sessions
Judge, South, Saket Courts, directing for submission of the periodic medical
reports from the Institute of Human Behaviour & Allied Sciences
(hereinafter “IHBAS”) through physical production of the patient, despite
his grave medical condition.
5. The petitioner is the wife of Sh. Jivtesh Singh Maini. Respondent nos.
3 and 4 are their sons.
6. Mr. Jivtesh Singh Maini (patient) is a 78-year-old suffering from
advanced vascular dementia, irreversible Alzheimer’s disease, Normal
Pressure Hydrocephalus (post-VP shunt), recurrent seizures, and severe
cognitive and physical impairment. His condition is chronic, degenerative,
and irreversible, rendering him wheelchair-bound, immunocompromised,
and fully dependent.
7. The Ld. Principal District & Sessions Judge vide order dated
31.05.2024, appointed the petitioner as guardian under Section 14 of the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter “RPWD”) and
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:20.04.2026
19:31:49
directed submission of medical status reports of the patient every three
months. The petitioner since then claims to have consistently complied with
the directions.
8. It is the case of the petitioner that the reports of the treating physician
were accepted without any objection. The report of the IHBAS clearly
declares the patient “unfit to stand trial” and accordingly the patient was
granted permanent exemption from his physical appearance by the Ld.
Special Court, CBI, Rouse Avenue on 11.08.2025.
9. The petitioner, thus submits that vide order dated 05.01.2026, the
reports issued by the treating private medical practitioner has been refused to
be accepted and it has been insisted that the petitioner to produce a report
from IHBAS for periodic assessment. The petitioner thus contends that
impugned insistence is medically unsafe and disproportionate and contrary
to constitutional guarantees and the legislative mandate under the RWPD
Act.
10. Mr. Sameer Vashisht, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent no. 1 has pointed out that this Court in FAO 87/2026 is
considering almost similar grievance where the issue of providing total
support or temporary in the subject matter of the adjudication. He submits
that Sub-Section 1 and 2(b) of Section 101 of the RWPD Act, empowers the
State Government to make rules for providing limited guardianship Sub-
Section 1 of Section 14 of the RWPD Act, however, there are no rules made
for providing of total support.
11. If the first proviso of Section 14 of the RWPD Act is considered in the
right perspective, it would indicate that the District Court or the designated
authority as the case may be, may grant total support to the person with
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:20.04.2026
19:31:49
disability acquiring such support or where the limited guardianship is to be
granted repeatedly in which case the decision regarding the support to be
provided shall be reviewed by the Court or the designated authority as the
case may be to determine the nature and manner of support to be provided.
12. It is, thus, seen that there is no embargo under the provisions of the
RWPD Act to consider granting total support to the person with disability
requiring such support.
13. The absence of the rules would not be the sole factor for the
concerned authority, not to exercise the statutory power. This position has
been clarified by the Supreme Court in the case of Orissa State (Prevention
1
& Control of Pollution) Board v. Orient Paper Mills .
14. In view of the aforesaid, let the petitioner to approach the concerned
district judge for authorization of grant of total support to a person with
disability i.e., the patient in the instant case.
15. Till the concerned district judge takes a final view, insistence for
IHBAS report shall stand dispensed with and the report of the patient’s
treating doctor should suffice the purpose.
16. With the aforesaid observations, the instant petition stands disposed
of.
17. Order Dasti.
(PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV)
JUDGE
APRIL 20, 2026/SH
1
(2003) 10 SCC 421.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:20.04.2026
19:31:49