High Court exercises *parens patriae* jurisdiction to appoint legal guardian for person with advanced dementia.

The petitioners, daughters of Smt. Promilla Madan (a retired professor), sought the appointment of Petitioner No. 1 as the legal guardian of their mother

Smt. Promilla Madan was diagnosed with Lewy Body Dementia in 2012, leading to voluntary retirement and progressive cognitive deterioration

Following the death of her husband in June 2024, she became entirely dependent on Petitioner No. 1 for daily needs

She owns immovable property in Gurgaon and holds financial assets but is unable to manage them or defend her interests in a pending partition suit

A court-appointed Medical Board confirmed she suffers from "advanced stage of dementia (severe to profound)" and is incapable of cognitive assessment

doctrine of parens patriae under Article 226 of the Constitution, which empowers Constitutional Courts to safeguard the interests of vulnerable persons unable to protect themselves

mental incompetency is an exceptional circumstance justifying this jurisdiction regardless of the statutory framework of the RPWD Act, 2016 (S.D. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

principle of "wills and preferences" from the UNCRPD

precedents like Vijay Ramachandra Salgaonkar v. State and Simardeep Uppal v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, which affirm the court's power to appoint family members as guardians for medically incapacitated adults to manage medical and financial affairs

The court found that Smt. Promilla Madan’s condition constituted an "exceptional circumstance" because her profound dementia rendered her incapable of managing her property, bank accounts, or legal defense

Applying the parens patriae doctrine, the court determined that the existing legislative gap regarding guardianship for adults with dementia does not denude the High Court of its power to act "to meet the ends of justice"

The court analyzed the suitability of Petitioner No. 1, noting she is a highly qualified relative (MBA) who has been the primary caregiver

Since Petitioner No. 2 (the only other immediate kin) provided "no objection" and there was no evidence of conflict of interest or adverse conduct, the court concluded that the appointment served the "best interest" and welfare of the patient

The court appointed Petitioner No. 1, Ms. Anvita Madan, as the legal guardian of Smt. Promilla Madan for all medical, legal, financial, and property-related purposes

The petition was allowed, ensuring that the patient's funds and assets could be utilized for her treatment and maintenance