High Court of Andhra Pradesh Upholds Maintainability of Writ Petition Seeking Appointment of Guardian for Comatose Patient Under Article 226 Parens Patriae Jurisdiction. The Court Held That in the Absence of Statutory Remedy for Guardianship of a Person in Vegetative/Comatose State, the High Court Can Exercise Parens Patriae Jurisdiction and Followed Guidelines Laid Down by the Kerala High Court for Appointment and Monitoring of Guardian, Including Medical Board Examination and Periodical Reporting.

Writ petition under Article 226 seeking appointment of petitioner No.3 as legal guardian for a person in vegetative/comatose state to operate bank account and meet medical expenses.

Petitioner No.1 (wife), petitioner Nos.2 and 3 (children) sought a writ of Mandamus invoking parens patriae jurisdiction to appoint petitioner No.3 as legal guardian of Singavaram Subhan Singh for limited purpose of operating and withdrawing from his Axis Bank Account No.913010036494989 to meet medical expenses.

No statutory procedure exists for spouse or legal heirs to secure guardianship of an individual in vegetative/comatose state; funds in bank account necessary for continuing medical treatment were inaccessible without guardianship order.

No previous decisions in this case; the petition was filed directly in the High Court.

Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable for appointment of guardian of a person in vegetative/comatose state in absence of statutory remedy. Whether the High Court can exercise parens patriae jurisdiction to appoint guardian and what guidelines should govern such appointment. Whether the claim is purely civil in nature and should be agitated before civil court, rendering writ not maintainable.

Petitioners argued that no procedure exists under civil law or any special law for appointment of guardian for a person in vegetative/comatose state, therefore they invoked extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 and relied on Delhi High Court decision; among the petitioners one is entitled to be declared guardian. Respondent Government Pleader argued that the writ petition is not maintainable under extraordinary jurisdiction because the claim is purely civil in nature and the petitioners should initiate appropriate proceedings before the civil court; hence the petition is liable to be dismissed.

The High Court may exercise parens patriae jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to appoint a guardian for a person in vegetative/comatose state when no statutory remedy exists. While exercising such jurisdiction, the court must consider the 'wills and preferences' of the individual as required under the UNCRPD, along with 'best interest'. The court has power under the proviso to Section 14(1) of the RPWD Act, 2016 and the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017. Guidelines for appointment include medical board examination, revenue report, property disclosure, close relative as guardian, six-month periodic reports, and revocation for misuse.

to issue a writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus, invoking the parens patriae jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court, appoint petitioner No.3 as the legal guardian of my father, Sri Singavaram Subhan Singh, who is presently in a vegetative/comatose state, for the limited purpose of operating and withdrawing amounts from his Axis Bank Account bearing No. 913010036494989, for meeting his medical expenses Admittedly there is no other procedure either under the civil law remedies or under any special law remedies were provided under any enactment. While exercising parens patriae jurisdiction, Courts used to apply the principle of 'best interest of the individual'. However, with the introduction of the UNCRPD, 'best interest' of the individual has to be in the light of the 'wills and preferences' of the individual. Thus, both, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 and even in terms of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the RPWD-2016 and under the MHA-2017, this Court has the power to entertain the present petition seeking appointment of a guardian. since no specific provision is available in any Statutes to deal with the procedure for such appointment of Guardian to a victim lying in 'comatose state', it is necessary to stipulate some 'Guidelines'

Petitioners filed writ petition under Article 226 seeking mandamus to appoint petitioner No.3 as guardian of father in vegetative state. Respondents contested maintainability arguing claim is civil. Court heard both sides, perused medical certificates and relied on precedents from Delhi and Kerala High Courts, and proceeded to consider guidelines for appointment.

• Constitution of India, 1950: Article 226
• Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016: Section 14(1) proviso
• Mental Healthcare Act, 2017:
• Mental Health Act, 1987: Repealed
• Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995: Repealed
• National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999: