Trademark Pirates Face Legal Wrath: Delhi HC Enforces Radio Mirchi’s IP Rights Swiftly Madras High Court Upholds Extended Adjudication Period Under Customs Act Amid Allegations of Systemic Lapses Disputes Over Religious Office Will Be Consolidated for Efficient Adjudication, Holds Karnataka High Court Motive Alone, Without Corroborative Evidence, Insufficient for Conviction : High Court Acquits Accused in 1993 Murder Case Himachal Pradesh HC Criticizes State for Delays: Orders Timely Action on Employee Grievances Calls for Pragmatic Approach to Desertion and Cruelty in Divorce Cases: Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Trial Juvenile Tried as Adult: Bombay High Court Validates JJB Decision, Modifies Sentence to 7 Years Retrospective Application of Amended Rules for Redeployment Declared Invalid: Orissa High Court NDPS Act Leaves No Room for Leniency: HC Requires Substantial Proof of Innocence for Bail No Protection Without Performance: MP High Court Denies Relief Under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act Delays in processing applications for premature release cannot deprive convicts of interim relief: Karnataka High Court Grants 90-Day Parole Listing All Appeals Arising From A Common Judgment Before The Same Bench Avoids Contradictory Rulings: Full Bench of the Patna High Court. Age Claims in Borderline Cases Demand Scrutiny: Madhya Pradesh HC on Juvenile Justice Act Bishop Garden Not Available for Partition Due to Legal Quietus on Declaration Suit: Madras High Court Exclusion of Certain Heirs Alone Does Not Make a Will Suspicious: Kerala High Court Upholds Validity of Will Proof of Delivery Was Never Requested, Nor Was it a Payment Precondition: Delhi High Court Held Courier Firm Entitled to Payment Despite Non-Delivery Allegations Widowed Daughter Eligible for Compassionate Appointment under BSNL Scheme: Allahabad High Court Brutality of an Offence Does Not Dispense With Legal Proof: Supreme Court Overturns Life Imprisonment of Two Accused Marumakkathayam Law | Partition Is An Act By Which The Nature Of The Property Is Changed, Reflecting An Alteration In Ownership: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claim | Compensation Must Aim To Restore, As Far As Possible, What Has Been Irretrievably Lost: Supreme Court Awards Rs. 1.02 Crore Personal Criticism Of Judges Or Recording Findings On Their Conduct In Judgments Must Be Avoided: Supreme Court Efficiency In Arbitral Proceedings Is Integral To Effective Dispute Resolution. Courts Must Ensure That Arbitral Processes Reach Their Logical End: Supreme Court Onus Lies On The Propounder To Remove All Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding A Will To The Satisfaction Of The Court: Calcutta High Court Deeds of Gift Not Governed by Section 22-B of Registration Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Testimony Of  Injured Witness Carries A Built-In Guarantee Of Truthfulness: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction for Attempted Murder POCSO | Conviction Cannot Be Sustained Without Conclusive Proof Of Minority - Burden Lies On The Prosecution: Telangana High Court Credible Eyewitness Account, Supported By Forensic Corroboration, Creates An Unassailable Chain Of Proof That Withstands Scrutiny: Punjab and Haryana High Court Jammu & Kashmir High Court Grants Bail to Schizophrenic Mother Accused of Murdering Infant Son

Madras High Court Appoints Wife as Guardian for Comatose Husband's Property, Emphasizes Jurisdiction under Article 226

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court has appointed S. Sasikala as the guardian for her husband, M. Sivakumar, who is in a comatose state. The Division Bench comprising Justices G.R. Swaminathan and P.B. Balaji overturned a single judge's dismissal of the writ petition, asserting the court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This judgment underscores the judiciary's role in safeguarding the interests of individuals in a vegetative state when statutory remedies are unavailable.

The appellant, S. Sasikala, sought to be appointed as the guardian for her husband, M. Sivakumar, who has been in a vegetative state since February 2024 due to a medical condition. Despite accruing significant medical expenses and the ongoing need for critical care, the single judge initially dismissed her writ petition, directing her to approach a civil court instead. This decision was challenged in the present appeal.

The Division Bench observed that the single judge erred in dismissing the writ petition based on maintainability. Drawing from precedents, particularly a Kerala High Court decision, the bench emphasized that in cases where no statutory remedy exists, the court's jurisdiction under Article 226 can be invoked to protect the rights of individuals in a comatose state. "It is often said, Courts have to do what the Parliament would have done," the bench noted, referring to the concept of parens patriae jurisdiction.

The court referred to several precedents, including the Kerala High Court's decision in Shobha Balakrishnan and another vs. State of Kerala, which dealt with similar circumstances. The Kerala judgment highlighted the court's role in providing relief when statutory provisions are absent, establishing guidelines for appointing guardians for individuals in comatose states.

The court reiterated that the welfare of individuals in vegetative states necessitates immediate judicial intervention to appoint guardians for managing their affairs. The judgment emphasized that procedural hurdles should not impede justice, especially when the facts are undisputed, and the need for relief is urgent and evident.

"The jurisdiction under Article 226 springs up when no remedy is provided under any statute to persons like patients in a comatose state," the bench remarked. "Driving the appellant to move the civil court, in our view, is not proper. When based on admitted and proved facts relief can be granted, there is no purpose in non-suiting the appellant on the ground that the writ petition is not maintainable."

The judgment by the Madras High Court highlights the judiciary's proactive role in ensuring justice for vulnerable individuals. By allowing the writ appeal and appointing S. Sasikala as the guardian for her husband's property, the court has provided a framework for similar future cases. This decision reinforces the legal principle that courts can step in to fill legislative gaps, ensuring the protection and welfare of incapacitated individuals.

 

Date of Decision: 23.05.2024

Sasikala vs The State of Tamil Nadu & Others

Similar News