Facts
The petitioner, Arun Singh, sought appointment as the legal guardian of his 84-year-old aunt, Smt. Rajeshwari Singh, under the doctrine of parens patriae.
Source reference: p.1Smt. Singh suffers from advanced progressive senile dementia and bronchial asthma, rendering her unable to manage her personal, medical, or financial affairs.
Source reference: p.1-2Her only son resides in the United States and is unable to travel to India due to lower-body paralysis resulting from a 2013 accident.
Source reference: p.2Her husband passed away in 2022.
Source reference: p.2A court-ordered medical board at Safdarjung Hospital confirmed her condition as "progressive Dementia (advance stage)," requiring aid for daily activities.
Source reference: p.2-3The petitioner has been the primary caregiver, and the son provided a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for the petitioner’s appointment.
Source reference: p.3Issues
1. Whether the High Court can invoke its parens patriae jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to appoint a guardian for a mentally incapacitated adult in cases of a statutory vacuum?
Source reference: p.3-42. Whether the petitioner is a suitable candidate for appointment as a legal guardian in the absence of any conflict of interest?
Source reference: p.4, 9-10Law Applied
The court primarily applied the doctrine of parens patriae and Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which empowers High Courts to protect the interests of vulnerable persons who cannot protect themselves.
Source reference: p.3It considered the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act (RPWD), 2016, noting that while the Act provides for guardianship, a legislative vacuum exists regarding the appointment of family members as guardians for medically incapacitated adults.
Source reference: p.3, 6The court relied on S. D. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, establishing that mental incompetency is an "exceptional circumstance" justifying parens patriae jurisdiction.
Source reference: p.4It further cited Vijay Ramachandra Salgaonkar v. State and Simardeep Uppal v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, which affirmed that statutory gaps do not preclude the High Court from safeguarding the welfare, dignity, and proprietary rights of incapacitated persons.
Source reference: p.5, 7Reasoning
The court reasoned that the parens patriae jurisdiction is an extraordinary power to be exercised with caution to meet the ends of justice in exceptional cases.
Source reference: p.3, 9It found that Smt. Rajeshwari Singh’s condition met the threshold of "exceptional circumstances" based on the medical board's report.
Source reference: p.9The court observed that existing statutes like the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, and the RPWD Act, 2016, do not provide a clear procedural path for family members to be designated as guardians for adults with advanced dementia.
Source reference: p.7By applying the principle of "wills and preferences" and "best interests," the court noted that the petitioner had no conflict of interest and was already acting as the primary caregiver.
Source reference: p.4, 10Since the only immediate heir (the son) consented and was physically unable to serve, the court determined that the petitioner was the most suitable "rightful protector" to manage her estate and medical needs.
Source reference: p.5, 9-10Holding
The court allowed the petition and exercised its parens patriae jurisdiction to appoint Arun Singh as the legal guardian of Smt. Rajeshwari Singh.
The holding establishes that in the absence of a specific statutory mechanism for incapacitated adults, the High Court may intervene under Article 226 to protect the subject's welfare and dignity.
Source reference: p.9The petitioner was specifically authorized to manage her medical, legal, and financial affairs.
Source reference: p.10The petition was disposed of with these directions.
Source reference: p.10Original Court PDF
Arun SinghvsGovt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi And Anr.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in