Anvita Madan & Anr. vs Union Of India & Ors.

$~23
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 10848/2025

Date of Decision: 18.05.2026
IN THE MATTER OF:

ANVITA MADAN & ANR.
.....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Shoba Ramamoorthy, AOR, Mr.
Shilp Vinod, AOR, Ms. Supriya,
Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Neeraj (SPC), Mr.Soumyadip
Chakraborty, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Tushar Sannu and Mr. Parvin
Bansal, Advocates for GNCTD.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
J U D G E M E N T

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)


1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, invoking the doctrine of parens patriae , seeking the
appointment of petitioner no. 1, Ms. Anvita Madan, as the legal guardian of
her mother, Smt. Promilla Madan, for managing her personal, medical,
financial and property-related affairs.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
15:59:46
W.P.(C) 10848/2025 Page 1 of 12

2. The facts of the case would indicate that the petitioners, Ms. Anvita
Madan and Ms. Asmita Madan, are the daughters of Smt. Promilla Madan. It
is stated that petitioner no.1, Ms. Anvita Madan, has been residing with Smt.
Promilla Madan and has been taking care of her day-to-day needs and
medical requirements, whereas petitioner no. 2 is presently residing at
Melborune, Australia.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Smt. Promilla Madan
is a highly qualified academician, who holds a Doctorate degree in Zoology
and had served as a Professor at Maitreyi College, University of Delhi, for
more than 25 years. It is submitted that she was diagnosed with Lewy Body
Dementia in the year 2012 and, on account of the progressive deterioration
in her cognitive condition, was constrained to take voluntary retirement from
service in the year 2013.
4. It is submitted that the cognitive functions of Smt. Promilla Madan
have substantially deteriorated and that she is now entirely dependent upon
caretakers for her day-to-day activities, medical needs and personal care. It
is further submitted that she is unable to independently comprehend or take
decisions in relation to her affairs. Her husband, Lieutenant Colonel Atul
Madan, has passed away on 01.06.2024, only petitioner no.1, Ms. Anvita
Madan, has been residing with her and has been taking full care of her well-
being and other requirements.
5. It is further submitted that Smt. Promilla Madan is the owner of
immovable property bearing Flat No. 3C, Victoria, Raisina Residency,
Sector-59, Gurgaon, Haryana. She receives widow pension benefits and
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
15:59:46
W.P.(C) 10848/2025 Page 2 of 12

maintains Savings Bank Accounts and other financial assets. Learned
counsel further submits that a partition suit bearing CS(OS) No.209/2025
has been instituted before this Court by the sister of Smt. Promilla Madan,
wherein Smt. Promilla Madan has been arrayed as defendant no.3 and,
owing to her mental incapacity, is unable to defend her rights and interests
in the said proceedings.
6. It is submitted that owing to her deteriorating mental and cognitive
condition, Smt. Promilla Madan is no longer capable of managing her
movable and immovable assets or attending to her financial affairs. It is
further submitted that she is unable to understand, approve or sign
documents and, consequently, despite availability of sufficient funds in her
accounts, the same cannot be effectively utilized towards her regular
medical treatment, care and other day-to-day requirements.
7. Pursuant to the order dated 25.07.2025 passed by this Court, a
Medical Board comprising Dr. Vandana Chakravarty as Chairperson along
with three other members was constituted to assess the medical condition of
Smt. Promilla Madan. The Board examined Smt. Promilla Madan at her
residence on 10.09.2025 and submitted its report dated 15.09.2025, wherein
it opined that Ms. Promilla Madan is suffering from an advanced stage of
dementia (severe to profound) and is entirely dependent upon a caretaker for
basic activities of daily living.
8. For the sake of clarity, the report of the medical report is extracted as
under:
A Multipal Medical Board was held on 10/09/2025 at 10.00 AM under
“
the chairpersonship of Dr Vandana Chakravarty at residence of the
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
15:59:46
W.P.(C) 10848/2025 Page 3 of 12

patient Smt. Promila Madan w/o Late. Atul Madan, C-6 Greater
Kailash Enclave-I, Greater Kailash, New Delhi- 110048.
Smt. Promila Madan, 67 years, Female was thoroughly examined,
detailed history taken and her medical records were reviewed.
“On evaluation, the board is of the opinion that she is suffering an
advanced stage of Dementia (severe to profound)”.
No cognitive assessment could be done as the patient is in advanced
stage of dementia and is dependent on a caretaker for basic activity of
daily living .”
9. Before proceeding to examine the merits of the present petition, this
Court deems it apposite to briefly advert to the settled legal position
governing the exercise of parens patriae jurisdiction.
1
10. In S.D. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., this Court observed that the
parens patriae jurisdiction is to be invoked in exceptional circumstances and
exercised with due caution, particularly in cases involving persons suffering
from mental incapacity. The Court noted that Constitutional Courts are
empowered to exercise such jurisdiction where a person is unable to protect
his or her interests or is vulnerable to abuse, neglect, coercion or undue
influence.
11. While examining the scheme of the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities Act, 2016, [“ RPWD Act ”] the Court further observed that
notwithstanding the statutory framework relating to appointment of
guardians, the absence of an adequate mechanism for protection of mentally
incapacitated adults would not denude the High Court of its jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to safeguard the interests of
such vulnerable persons. The Court also underscored that the suitability and
conduct of the proposed guardian assumes considerable significance and that
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
15:59:46
W.P.(C) 10848/2025 Page 4 of 12

a person having a conflict of interest or acting contrary to the welfare of the
incapacitated individual ought not to be appointed as guardian. The relevant
extract is reproduced as under:-
“209. The Supreme Court therefore held that in order to invoke the
parens patriae jurisdiction, exceptional circumstances have to exist.
It quoted with approval the observations of the Supreme Court of
Canada in E v. Eve (supra) that the said jurisdiction is carefully
guarded and there shall be no presumption that the parens patriae
jurisdiction is removed by legislation. The scope of parens patriae
jurisdiction being unlimited, it has to be exercised with great caution
and with enormous seriousness. The Supreme Court recognises that
Constitutional Courts, including High Courts, can also act under
their parens patriae jurisdiction to “meet the ends of justice”.
Mental incompetency is listed as an exceptional circumstance which
would justify the exercise of this jurisdiction. If the Court is satisfied
that the person concerned is either being abused or neglected,
parens patriae jurisdiction can be exercised. Even vulnerable adults
can be protected under this jurisdiction if there are any factors that
point towards undue influence, coercion, constraint etc.”
“217. 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.”
“220. 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

1
2021:DHC:3463
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
15:59:46
W.P.(C) 10848/2025 Page 5 of 12

provisions of the RPWD-2016 Act or the Rules thereunder. 221.
Thus, both, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226”
“226. It is also the settled legal position that the conduct of the
person being considered for appointment as the guardian would be
extremely important and relevant. Persons with conflict or vested
interest, naturally, ought not to be appointed. Persons who may have
engaged in conduct that is detrimental to the mentally ill person or
who have exercised undue influence, coercion, duress ought not to
be appointed. These factors have been considered by Courts in
various cases, especially under the MHA1987.”
2
12. In Vijay Ramachandra Salgaonkar v. State , the Bombay High Court
was dealing with a petition seeking appointment of the petitioner as the legal
guardian of his wife, who was suffering from vascular dementia, diabetes
and hypertension and was stated to be in a vegetative condition rendering
her incapable of managing her personal and financial affairs. Invoking its
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the doctrine of
parens patriae , the Court observed that in the absence of an effective
statutory mechanism governing guardianship of mentally incapacitated
adults, it was imperative for the Constitutional Courts to step in and protect
such vulnerable individuals. Accordingly, the petitioner therein was
appointed as the legal guardian of his wife and was authorised to manage her
bank accounts, properties and financial affairs exclusively for her welfare
and benefit. The Court, however, emphasised that such jurisdiction must be
exercised with considerable caution and only in exceptional circumstances.
3
13. In Pooja Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh , the Allahabad High
Court observed that the doctrine of parens patriae is required to be invoked
sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances to meet the ends of justice.

2
2021 SCC Online Bom 14114
3
(2023) 2 HCC (All) 511
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
15:59:46
W.P.(C) 10848/2025 Page 6 of 12

The Court recognised mental incapacity and vegetative condition as
circumstances warranting exercise of such jurisdiction and observed that
where a person is unable to protect his or her own interests owing to such
incapacity, the Constitutional Courts may step in to safeguard the rights and
welfare of such individual. The relevant extract is reproduced as under:
“33. The Supreme Court in Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union
of India, has explained difference between permanent vegetative
state and minimal conscious state. Section 2(s) of the Rights of
People with Disabilities Act, 2016 defines persons with disabilities.
This category of persons are those who are able to interact though
not fully coherent. Hence, guardian was to be appointed under
Section 14 of the Act. However, for a person in comatose state, there
is no interaction and the victim would not respond to any stimuli,
hence, the provisions of personal disability defined under Section
2(s) of the Act cannot be said to be attracted in such cases.
Therefore, in the larger interest of patient lying in comatose state,
who is in urgent need of treatment, support and for that they need
funds to take care of this extraordinary situation, which cannot be
ignored or compromised, hence, the court is consciously bound to
invoke power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to deal
with such situation.”
“37. The court further held that in order to invoke the parens patriae
jurisdiction, exceptional circumstances have to exist. The scope of
parens patriae jurisdiction has to be exercised with great caution
and with enormous seriousness. The Supreme Court recognises that
Constitutional Courts, including High Courts, can also act under
their parens patriae jurisdiction to "meet the ends of justice". Mental
incompetency is listed as an exceptional circumstance which would
justify the exercise of this jurisdiction. If the court is satisfied that the
person concerned is in a vegetative state, then surely "parens
patriae" jurisdiction can be exercised.”
“55. Thus, on a perusal of the medical report of husband of the
petitioner and various decisions of other High Courts as well as this
Court, it is clear that a constraint court may act as parens patriae so
as to meet the ends of justice. The guidelines laid down by various
courts in identical matters appear to be sound. Thus, we fix the
following norms/guidelines for appointing the petitioner as guardian
of her husband:”
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
15:59:46
W.P.(C) 10848/2025 Page 7 of 12

4
14. In Simardeep Uppal & Anr. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr., this
Court observed that the existing legal framework does not provide a specific
statutory mechanism for appointment of family members as guardians of
medically incapacitated adults. Invoking its parens patriae jurisdiction, the
Court proceeded to protect the interests of one Dr. Sarvajit Singh Uppal, a
retired paediatrician suffering from advanced Alzheimer’s disease. The
Court noted that following the demise of his wife, who had been his primary
caregiver, Dr. Uppal had undergone severe cognitive decline and was
incapable of managing his personal affairs, financial assets and day-to-day
activities independently. The Court further took note of the reports of the
Medical Boards, including the court-appointed medical team, certifying that
he was suffering from severe dementia and required continuous supervision.
Accordingly, this Court passed the following order:-
“7. In the absence of a legal guardian, the Petitioners are facing
difficulties in covering Dr. Uppal's medical expenses. Therefore,
they request the Court to appoint both of them as joint legal
guardians of Dr. Uppal enabling them to arrange the necessary care
and safeguard his property.
10. The prevailing legal framework for the welfare of individuals
incapable of self-care includes the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, the
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the National Trust for
Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation
and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999, the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities Act, 2016, and Order XXXII of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908. Yet, as the Petitioners rightly observe, none of
these statutes provides a clear path for designating a family member
as the legal guardian of a person with significant mental health
challenges such as advanced dementia. Several judicial decisions
have acknowledged this legislative gap in addressing guardianship
for such individuals. Nonetheless, in appropriate cases, the courts
have invoked their parens patriae jurisdiction to appoint immediate
family members as legal
11. The Court deems it fit to mention that the Joint Legal Guardians

4
W.P. (C) 11170/2024; Order Dt. 20.12.2024
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
15:59:46
W.P.(C) 10848/2025 Page 8 of 12

shall maintain a dedicated record of all transactions pertaining to
Dr. Uppal’s assets and care expenses, separately from their personal
finances. They shall be answerable to this Court for any withdrawals
or expenditures, and in the event of any suspicion or complaint by
third parties or the Delhi State Legal Services Authority, the matter
may be revisited. Should Dr. Uppal’s medical condition improve, or
if any alternative arrangement emerges, the guardianship granted
herein may be modified or revoked upon appropriate application.”

5
15. In Neeraj Jaiswal & Ors. v. State of M.P. & Ors. , the Madhya
Pradesh High Court was dealing with a petition seeking appointment of the
husband as the legal guardian of his wife, who was stated to be in a
persistent vegetative state and incapable of managing her affairs. The
petition had been preferred to enable the husband to administer and deal with
the jointly owned properties so as to generate funds for her medical
treatment and the maintenance of the family. The Court observed that the
medical material placed on record, including the reports of expert Medical
Boards, clearly established that the patient was incapable of taking decisions
or executing documents. The Court further took note of the severe emotional
and financial burden faced by the family in ensuring continued medical
treatment and care for the patient and her dependents.
“ 9. Heard. Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal
of the record, it is apparent that the petitioner no. 1's wife/Rashmi
Jaiswal is in a vegetative state as has been certified by a committee
of six doctors of the Civil Hospital at Ahmedabad in its report dated
15.1.2022, and subsequently, on 11.08.2023, the report was given by
a committee of five Doctors of the said hospital. An affidavit dated
10.3.2024 has also been filed to the same effect by the petitioner no.
1 himself that his wife is in a comatose condition, whereas the
petition itself has been filed on 27.7.2021, in which also the same
facts have been narrated by the petitioners.”
“10. In such facts and circumstances, the mental and physical state
of the petitioner's wife that she is in a vegetative state cannot be
denied, and apparently the same must have caused incomprehensible

5
2024 SCC OnLine MP 8467
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
15:59:46
W.P.(C) 10848/2025 Page 9 of 12

difficulties to the petitioner no. 1 who is continuously taking care of
his wife, and at the same time, he is also required to look after his
two children, the petitioners no. 2 and 3. In such facts and
circumstances, and also taking note of the decisions rendered by
various high Court in the case of Philomena Leo Lobo (supra), R.
Usha (supra), Rajni Hariom Sharma (supra), Sairabanu Mohammad
Rafi(supra), Sayardevi Chaudhary (supra), Shobha Gopalakrishnan
(supra), Uma Mittal (supra) and Vandana Tyagi (supra), this Court
is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case where the petitioner
no. 1 can be appointed as a guardian to deal with the properties of
his wife/Rashmi Jaiswal, accordingly the petition stands allowed in
terms of the relief sought.”
6
16. This Court, in Arun Singh vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.,
considered a similar controversy concerning one Ms. Rajeshwari Singh, who
was suffering from advanced progressive dementia and was unable to
independently carry out her daily activities and manage her affairs. While
exercising its parens patriae jurisdiction, this Court appointed her nephew
as her legal guardian for all legal and financial purposes. The Court, while
exercising such jurisdiction, observed as under:-
“ 14. From the perusal of the aforesaid decisions, it emerges that the
parens patriae jurisdiction of Constitutional Courts is an extraordinary
power which may be invoked only in exceptional circumstances such as to
protect the interests of persons who are incapable of managing their
affairs due to mental incapacity, a persistent vegetative state, e.t.c. Where
the existing statutory framework does not provide an effective mechanism
for the appointment of a guardian for such persons, High Courts, in
exercise of their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
may step in to safeguard the welfare, dignity, and proprietary rights of the
incapacitated person. While doing so, the Court must exercise such power
with great caution, bearing in mind the best interests of the individual,
and ensuring that the proposed guardian is free from any conflict of
interest or adverse conduct. In appropriate cases, immediate family
members may be appointed as guardians for the limited purpose of
managing the medical, financial, and property-related affairs of the
incapacitated person.
15. Having regard to the aforesaid legal position and the material placed

6
2026:DHC:2252
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
15:59:46
W.P.(C) 10848/2025 Page 10 of 12

on record, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has
made out a case for the grant of the relief sought in the present petition.
The medical record, including the opinion of the duly constituted Medical
Boardat Safdarjung Hospital, clearly establishes that Smt. Rajeshwari
Singh is suffering from advanced progressive dementia and requires
assistance in carrying out her daily activities. The Court also takes note of
the fact that her only son, who resides in the United States of America and
suffers from physical disability, has furnished his no objection to the
appointment of the petitioner as legal guardian.
16. It is seen that the petitioner, being the nephew of Smt. Rajeshwari
Singh, has been taking care of her, and there is nothing on record to
indicate any conflict of interest or adverse conduct on his part. In these
circumstances, and keeping in view the object of protecting the welfare,
dignity and property of a person who is unable to manage her affairs due
to mental incapacity, this Court is satisfied that the present case warrants
the exercise of parens patriae jurisdiction.”
17. In view of the aforesaid discussion and having regard to the medical
condition of Smt. Promilla Madan, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the present case also warrants exercise of parens patriae jurisdiction
and the petitioners are entitled to similar reliefs as were granted by this
Court in case of Arun Singh .
18. It appears that petitioner no.1, Ms. Anvita Madan, is a graduate in
Economics and also holds a Post Graduate degree in Business
Administration. The material placed on record further reflects that she has
been acting as the primary caregiver of Smt. Promilla Madan and has been
attending to her medical and day-to-day requirements. It is also pertinent to
note that petitioner no.2 has expressed no objection to the appointment of
petitioner no.1 as the legal guardian of their mother and no opposition to the
present petition has been raised by any other person.
19. Accordingly, the prayer made in the present petition seeking
appointment of petitioner no.1, Ms. Anvita Madan, as the legal guardian of
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
15:59:46
W.P.(C) 10848/2025 Page 11 of 12

Smt. Promilla Madan for the purposes of managing her medical, legal,
financial and property-related affairs deserves to be acceded to.
20. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, petitioner no.1, Ms.
Anvita Madan, is appointed as the legal guardian of Smt. Promilla Madan
for all medical, legal , financial and property-related purposes.
21. For the foregoing reasons, the present petition, stands allowed.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.


(PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV)
JUDGE
MAY 18, 2026
aks/sk
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
15:59:46
W.P.(C) 10848/2025 Page 12 of 12