Bhavna Gulati & Anr. vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr.

$~39
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 22.07.2026
+ LPA 550/2026
BHAVNA GULATI & ANR. .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Arjeet Gaur, Mr. Jasbir Balhara
& Mr. Prince Sharma, Advocates.
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Shashi Pratap Singh, Ms. Shagun
Sabharwal, Ms. Anamika Tyagi &
Ms. Laqshiya Saluja, Advocates for
GNCTD (through VC).
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ. ( Oral )
CM APPL. 46233/2026 (Exemption)
1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The Application stands disposed of.
CM APPL. 46234/2026 (Condonation of Delay)
3. Heard the learned Counsel for the Parties.
4. For the reasons disclosed in the Application seeking condonation of
delay and having heard the learned Counsel for the Parties, the delay of 106
days in filing the Appeal is hereby condoned.
5. The Application stands disposed of.
LPA 550/2026 Page 1 of 6
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.07.2026
19:13:26

LPA 550/2026
6. This intra Court Appeal seeks to take an exception to an order dated
25.02.2026 (“ Impugned Order ”) passed by the learned Single Judge
dismissing W.P.(C) 5959/2024 (“ Writ Petition ”) instituted by the
Appellants.
7. The prayer made in the proceedings before the learned Single Judge
was that a direction be issued to the Respondents to appoint Appellant No. 1
as guardian of the person and property of Appellant No. 2 for the reason that
Appellant No. 2 has been suffering from Cerebral Palsy with Dolico
Cephaly with seizures with Mental Retardation and 100% Locomotor
Disability from birth. The said prayer was made in the Writ Petition for the
reason that Appellant No. 1 is the sister of Appellant No. 2 and parents of
Appellant No. 2 had already passed away.
8. Further, the submissions made before the learned Single Judge in the
Writ Petition was that Appellant No. 2 is diagnosed with Cerebral Palsy with
Dolico Cephaly with seizures with Mental Retardation and he suffers from
100% Locomotor Disability from birth. It is also stated that Appellant No. 2
is not in a position to take care of himself and, therefore, the Respondents be
directed to appoint Appellant No. 1 as guardian of Appellant No. 2.
9. All the aforesaid aspects were considered by the learned Single Judge
and the prayer made therein for appointing Appellant No. 1 as guardian of
Appellant No. 2 has not been acceded to.
10. Learned Single Judge has 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 ”). The Impugned Order has also referred to a Division Bench
LPA 550/2026 Page 2 of 6
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.07.2026
19:13:26

judgment of this Court in Sunil Podar v. National Trust for the Welfare of
Person with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple
Disabilities and Anr. , 2023 SCC OnLine Del 832 and has, accordingly,
come to the conclusion that, since Appellant No. 1 is not an Indian citizen,
the direction sought by her in the Writ Petition could not be issued. The
reasoning given by the learned Single Judge is based on the provisions of
Rule 17(1)(iii)(a) of the Rules which provides that while taking a decision
on the appointment of guardian, the local level committee shall ensure that
the person whose name has been suggested for appointment as guardian is a
citizen of India.
11. Admittedly, the Appellants are not citizens of India; rather Appellant
No. 1 is a citizen of New Zealand. 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.
12. However, having observed as above, the fate of Appellant No. 2
cannot be left in a lurch. In this regard, a reference to the observations made
in Paragraph Nos. 42, 43 and 44 of the judgment in Sunil Podar (supra) is
relevant which are extracted herein below:
“ 42. That, however, cannot lead to a closure of these proceedings
since it would clearly be failing in its duty if it were to leave the
person with disabilities with an uncertain future and without
framing measures and putting in place steps to safeguard and
ensure his future. The petitioner is stated to have been looking after
and caring for all the needs of his son since adoption. The mother is
not shown to have taken any interest in the upbringing of the
physically challenged son. The son is stated to be in the legal
LPA 550/2026 Page 3 of 6
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.07.2026
19:13:26

custody of the petitioner. The ends of justice would thus appear to
merit the following directions being framed.
43. Let the Local Level Committee examine and evaluate the
circumstances and surroundings of the person with disabilities in
question forthwith. The Committee may also advise the 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 leaves it open to the petitioner to nominate an Indian citizen
who may be appointed as the statutory guardian of the son with
special needs. Any nomination that may be made in this respect shall
be duly examined and considered by the Local Level Committee. The
statutory guardian, when appointed, shall together with the
petitioner be obliged to attend to the welfare and upbringing of the
person concerned. The statutory guardian acting together with the
petitioner shall be responsible for the discharge of all statutory
obligations that stand placed under the Act.
44. The aforesaid directions, however, shall not be understood as
authorising the removal of the son from the custody of his natural
guardian, the father and the petitioner here, unless the Local Level
Committee finds that circumstances warrant otherwise. The
statutory guardian as well as the petitioner shall be jointly
responsible to care for and look after the welfare of the person with
disabilities. ”
13. 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.
LPA 550/2026 Page 4 of 6
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.07.2026
19:13:26

14. The court further provided that any nomination that may be made in
this respect shall be duly examined and considered by the local level
committee. Further direction issued is that the statutory guardian when
appointed, shall together with the person claiming the guardianship, be
obliged to attend to the welfare and upbringing of the person concerned.
15. Accordingly, though various submissions have been made by learned
Counsel for the Appellants notwithstanding the provisions contained in Rule
17(1)(iii)(a) of the Rules, it is the welfare of Appellant No. 2 which is
paramount and, therefore, some mechanism may be devised by the court
itself to ensure his welfare and well-being. The observations made and
directions given in Paragraph Nos. 42, 43 and 44 of the judgment in Sunil
Podar (supra) adequately take care of the concerns expressed by the learned
Counsel for the Appellants. Accordingly, without interfering with the
Impugned Order, we permit that in case Appellant No. 1 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, shall be taken
by the local level committee. We, further, reiterate, as already observed in
Paragraph No. 4 of the Impugned Order that the arrangement as envisaged in
the order dated 07.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in the Writ
Petition shall remain in force unless the same is modified by a competent
court / authority.
16. At this juncture, we have been informed that presently both Appellant
Nos. 1 and 2 are residing in Australia and the Australian visa issued to
Appellant No. 2 has already expired.
LPA 550/2026 Page 5 of 6
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.07.2026
19:13:26

17. We also observe that in case there are some visa related issues
concerning Appellant No. 2, the Ministry of External Affairs and Ministry of
Home Affairs, Government of India will extend fullest cooperation to the
Appellants.
18. The Appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ
TEJAS KARIA, J
JULY 22, 2026
‘A’
LPA 550/2026 Page 6 of 6
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.07.2026
19:13:26