When Law Fails, The Constitution Protects: Delhi High Court Appoints Wife As Legal Guardian of Comatose Husband

“There Exists a Legal Vacuum – But Courts Cannot Remain Silent When the Incapacitated Need Protection,” In a significant ruling that asserts the constitutional responsibility of the judiciary in protecting the vulnerable, the Delhi High Court invoked its parens patriae jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to appoint a woman as the legal guardian of her comatose husband, citing the absence of statutory support under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017.

The Court declared, “This Court is empowered to act in parens patriae jurisdiction in circumstances where statutory frameworks are silent, especially when the individual concerned is incapable of asserting or safeguarding their own rights.”

Justice Sachin Datta, presiding over the writ petition filed by Prof. Alka Acharya, ruled that her husband, Mr. Salam Khan, who has been in a vegetative state since February 2025 following a massive brain haemorrhage, required full-time care and protection. In the absence of a specific statutory mechanism allowing the spouse to assume guardianship of a comatose adult, the Court stepped in under its constitutional powers.

“No Statutory Bar Can Override the Constitutional Duty to Protect Those Who Cannot Speak for Themselves”

The case arose after Prof. Acharya filed a writ petition under Article 226, praying for her appointment as legal guardian of her husband to manage his medical decisions and financial affairs. The Court noted that existing statutes such as the RPWD Act and Mental Healthcare Act contain no clear provisions for appointing guardians for persons in a vegetative or comatose condition.

The judgment categorically stated, “In the absence of a Designated Authority having been notified under Section 14 of the RPWD Act, this Court is vested with the power to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 to ensure protection of the comatose person’s interests.”

The Court endorsed the position taken in prior decisions such as N.A. & Ors. v. GNCTD (2023) and S.D. v. GNCTD (2020), where parens patriae powers were exercised to fill the legal vacuum, affirming that “guardianship is not merely a statutory concept—it is rooted in constitutional equity when the vulnerable are left without representation.”

“The Welfare of the Incapacitated Must Prevail Over Procedural Rigidity”

A Medical Board constituted at GIPMER confirmed that Mr. Khan was in a persistent vegetative state with 100% disability, requiring full-time care and being unfit to take decisions. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate's inquiry independently verified his condition, the absence of any adverse interest, and authenticated the petitioner’s relationship as wife and primary caregiver.

The Court noted with approval, “The SDM has found the petitioner fully suitable for appointment as guardian, with no evidence of conflict of interest or financial impropriety.” Furthermore, the Court took into account that both adult children of the couple had filed affidavits and personally confirmed their no-objection to the appointment.

Quoting judicial precedent, the Court held, “In cases involving incapacitated persons, the constitutional courts are duty-bound to protect their interests, particularly where no statute offers a remedy, and familial consent is unequivocal.”

“The Role of the Court is Not Passive Where Dignity and Life Are at Stake”

The Court went further to address the fundamental need for judicial action in such situations. Drawing from the landmark judgment in Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India and subsequent High Court decisions including Lubina Agarwal v. UOI, Philomena Lobo v. UOI, and Shobha Gopalkrishnan v. State of Kerala, the Court underlined that:

“Parens patriae is not an exceptional or residual power—it is an inherent constitutional mandate. The court must act where the law is silent, especially when the individual affected lies in a condition that deprives them of agency, autonomy and protection.”

The Court observed that although Section 14 of the RPWD Act mentions the concept of support, there exists “no guidance as to the factors to be considered for providing total support”, and the designated authorities under the statute have yet to be operationalised in many states, including Delhi.

Thus, the bench concluded, “Until such time that a legislative framework is created, it is incumbent upon the constitutional courts to step in and safeguard the life, dignity, and property of such persons.”

Appointment of Guardian and Authorization Over Financial Affairs

Accordingly, the Court appointed Prof. Alka Acharya as the legal guardian of Mr. Salam Khan. She was granted full authority to take decisions relating to medical treatment, daily care, and management of movable and immovable assets, including bank accounts, mutual funds, insurance, and real estate.

The Court stated, “The petitioner is permitted to utilise the assets of Mr. Salam Khan exclusively towards his medical and daily expenses, as she is best placed to act in his interest.”

The judgment carefully listed the assets, including:

• Multiple accounts in HDFC and SBI,
• Fixed Deposits, Mutual Funds with Kotak and Axis,
• Two residential properties, and
• Two personal vehicles.

The Court acknowledged the substantial cost of medical care, observing that the monthly expenditure exceeds ₹1,20,000, which the petitioner has been personally managing. It held, “The guardian must be empowered to liquidate and manage resources to ensure continuous care, without undue procedural hurdles.”

Court’s Call for Legislative Action Remains Implicit Yet Urgent

While strictly refraining from legislative direction, the High Court’s judgment indirectly calls for urgent lawmaking in the area of guardianship for comatose or vegetative persons. The existing laws such as the Guardians and Wards Act, RPWD Act, and MHA, 2017 do not fill this gap, despite the growing number of such cases across India.

By invoking the doctrine of parens patriae, the Court emphasized that it was not legislating, but merely responding to an institutional silence, in line with constitutional obligations.

“The Court Cannot Be Silent When the Law Is Silent” – Delhi High Court’s Judgment Offers Dignity Where Law Offers None

In sum, the Court’s decision is a judicial affirmation of dignity, care, and constitutional guardianship. In recognising the petitioner-wife’s plea, the Court not only safeguarded the rights of an incapacitated individual but also set a precedent for compassionate constitutional intervention.

Date of Judgment: December 31, 2025