advocatemmmohan
Singavaram Nagamma & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
2026:APHC:16788 | Andhra Pradesh High Court | W.P. No.8729 of 2026 | Decided on 06.04.2026
HEAD NOTES
A. Constitution of India—Article 226—Parens Patriae Jurisdiction—Comatose Person.
Where no statutory mechanism exists for appointment of a guardian to a person lying in a vegetative/comatose state, the High Court can invoke its parens patriae jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to protect the interests of such person.
Held: Extraordinary jurisdiction is maintainable in the absence of an effective statutory remedy.
B. Guardian—Person in Vegetative/Comatose State—Appointment.
The spouse or other close legal heir may be appointed as guardian for the limited purpose of operating bank accounts and managing specified properties of a person in a vegetative/comatose state, subject to judicial supervision.
Held: Wife appointed guardian to operate the bank account of her comatose husband.
C. Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016—Mental Healthcare Act, 2017—Legislative Vacuum.
Neither the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 nor the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 provides a procedure for appointment of a guardian to a person in a vegetative/comatose state.
Held: Constitutional jurisdiction fills the legislative vacuum until suitable legislation is enacted.
D. Parens Patriae—Guidelines.
Pending legislative intervention, the Court may prescribe procedural safeguards governing appointment, powers, duties, supervision and accountability of guardians appointed for persons in a vegetative/comatose state.
Held: Kerala High Court guidelines substantially adopted with suitable modifications.
E. Guardianship—Best Interest Principle.
The guardian must act exclusively in the best interests of the person lying in a vegetative/comatose state, and management of property must remain subject to continuous judicial oversight.
Held: Periodical statements and supervision by the High Court directed.
ANALYSIS OF FACTS
The petitioners were the wife and children of Sri Singavaram Subhan Singh, who suffered a severe cerebrovascular accident, underwent neurosurgery, and thereafter remained in a permanent vegetative/comatose state.
Medical evidence established that he required continuous medical treatment and was incapable of managing his affairs. Though substantial funds remained in his Axis Bank account, the family could not operate the account without legal authority.
Since no statute provided any mechanism for appointment of a guardian in such circumstances, the petitioners invoked the parens patriae jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 seeking appointment of the wife as guardian for the limited purpose of operating the bank account and meeting medical expenses.
ANALYSIS OF LAW
(i) Maintainability under Article 226
The Court held that the writ petition was maintainable because there exists no statutory procedure governing appointment of a guardian for a person lying in a vegetative/comatose state.
Following the Delhi High Court decision in Professor Alka Acharya, the Court held that the High Court retains constitutional power to exercise parens patriae jurisdiction in appropriate cases.
(ii) Legislative Vacuum
The Court observed that neither the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, nor any other legislation provides an effective procedure for appointment of a guardian for a person in a vegetative state.
Until Parliament or the Legislature enacts an appropriate law, constitutional courts must protect such vulnerable persons by exercising equitable jurisdiction.
(iii) Adoption of Judicial Guidelines
The Court extensively relied upon:
Professor Alka Acharya v. Government of NCT of Delhi
Shobha Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala
Rajni Hariom Sharma v. Union of India
S. Sasikala v. State of Tamil Nadu
Epari Sushma v. State of Odisha
and substantially adopted the procedural safeguards evolved by the Kerala High Court regarding:
medical examination by competent Medical Board,
appointment of close relatives,
limitation of guardianship to specified assets,
periodical reporting,
judicial supervision,
removal of guardian in case of misuse,
requirement of Court permission for transfer outside jurisdiction.
(iv) Wife as Natural Guardian under Parens Patriae
The Court observed that where the husband has completely lost the ability to make decisions owing to a vegetative state, there can ordinarily be no person more naturally, morally or legally suited than the wife to protect his interests.
Referring to the Indian philosophical concept of "Ardhangini", the Court held that the wife is the most appropriate person to act as guardian in such circumstances, subject to judicial control.
RATIO DECIDENDI
In the absence of any statutory mechanism governing appointment of a guardian for a person lying in a vegetative/comatose state, the High Court may invoke its parens patriae jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to appoint an appropriate guardian. Such guardianship shall ordinarily be confined to specified properties or bank accounts, shall be exercised solely in the best interests of the incapacitated person, and shall remain subject to continuing judicial supervision and accountability until comprehensive legislation occupies the field.
FINAL HOLDING
Writ Petition allowed.
Petitioner No.1 (wife) declared guardian of her husband.
Authority granted to operate Axis Bank Account No. 913010036494989 solely for the benefit of the comatose patient.
Guardian directed to produce updated bank statements before the Registrar Judicial every three months for one year or until any major medical event, whichever occurs earlier.
Registry directed to forward a copy of the judgment to the Secretary, Department of Justice, Government of Andhra Pradesh for appropriate consideration regarding legislative measures.
No order as to costs.
No comments:
Post a Comment