Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Janaki Suresh, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a declaration that she be appointed as the legal guardian of her husband, Suresh Subramanian Iyer, who had been in a persistent vegetative state since 8 December 2021 after being admitted to Al Dhannah Hospital in Abu Dhabi. The petitioner and Mr. Iyer were married on 9 September 1996 and have three children. Mr. Iyer was employed with Abu Dhabi National Oil Company. The medical certificate dated 2 August 2023 confirmed that Mr. Iyer was unable to speak, sign, or communicate. The petitioner sought directions to the respondents, including the Union of India, State of Maharashtra, and Ministry of External Affairs, as well as banks and financial institutions, to allow her to operate and represent Mr. Iyer's affairs. The court noted that there was no specific statutory framework for guardianship of adults in a vegetative state, but exercised its parens patriae jurisdiction under Article 226. The court declared the petitioner as the legal guardian of Mr. Iyer and directed all concerned authorities to permit her to manage his affairs, including accessing bank accounts, managing investments, and paying medical expenses. The court also directed the respondents to facilitate the repatriation of Mr. Iyer to India if necessary. The petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Legal Guardianship of Comatose Person - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The Court exercised parens patriae jurisdiction to declare the petitioner as the legal guardian of her husband who was in a persistent vegetative state, as there was no other efficacious remedy available. The Court held that the High Court has inherent power to protect the person and property of those who are unable to protect themselves. (Paras 1-13) B) Medical Law - Persistent Vegetative State - Medical Certificate - The Court relied on a medical certificate dated 02/08/2023 from Al Dhannah Hospital confirming that Mr. Iyer was in a persistent vegetative state, unable to speak, sign, or communicate. (Paras 4-5) C) Guardianship - Adult Guardianship - No Statutory Framework - The Court noted the absence of a specific statute for guardianship of adults in a vegetative state, but held that the High Court's parens patriae jurisdiction under Article 226 can fill the void. (Paras 6-10) D) Property Law - Management of Assets - Directions to Banks and Authorities - The Court directed all banks, depositories, and financial institutions to allow the petitioner to operate and represent the affairs of Mr. Iyer, including accessing his bank accounts, managing investments, and paying medical bills. (Paras 11-13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner-wife can be declared the legal guardian of her comatose husband to manage his affairs and property in the absence of a statutory framework for guardianship of adults in vegetative state.
Final Decision
The Court allowed the petition, declared the petitioner as the legal guardian of Mr. Suresh Subramanian Iyer, and directed all banks, depositories, financial institutions, and authorities to permit the petitioner to operate and represent the affairs of Mr. Iyer, including accessing bank accounts, managing investments, and paying medical expenses. The Court also directed the respondents to facilitate repatriation if necessary. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Legal guardianship of comatose person
- parens patriae jurisdiction
- Article 226 of Constitution of India
- Mental Healthcare Act 2017
- National Trust Act 1999
