Anvita Madan & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, invoking the doctrine of parens patriae, seeking the appointment of petitioner no. 1, Ms. Anvita Madan, as the legal guardian of her mother, Smt. Promilla Madan, for managing her personal, medical, financial and property-related affairs.

KUMAR KAURAV

2. The facts of the case would indicate that the petitioners, Ms. Anvita Madan and Ms. Asmita Madan, are the daughters of Smt. Promilla Madan. It is stated that petitioner no.1, Ms. Anvita Madan, has been residing with Smt. Promilla Madan and has been taking care of her day-to-day needs and medical requirements, whereas petitioner no. 2 is presently residing at Melborune, Australia.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Smt. Promilla Madan is a highly qualified academician, who holds a Doctorate degree in Zoology and had served as a Professor at Maitreyi College, University of Delhi, for more than 25 years. It is submitted that she was diagnosed with Lewy Body Dementia in the year 2012 and, on account of the progressive deterioration in her cognitive condition, was constrained to take voluntary retirement from service in the year 2013.

4. It is submitted that the cognitive functions of Smt. Promilla Madan have substantially deteriorated and that she is now entirely dependent upon caretakers for her day-to-day activities, medical needs and personal care. It is further submitted that she is unable to independently comprehend or take decisions in relation to her affairs. Her husband, Lieutenant Colonel Atul Madan, has passed away on 01.06.2024, only petitioner no.1, Ms. Anvita Madan, has been residing with her and has been taking full care of her wellbeing and other requirements.

5. It is further submitted that Smt. Promilla Madan is the owner of immovable property bearing Flat No. 3C, Victoria, Raisina Residency, Sector-59, Gurgaon, Haryana. She receives widow pension benefits and maintains Savings Bank Accounts and other financial assets. Learned counsel further submits that a partition suit bearing CS(OS) No.209/2025 has been instituted before this Court by the sister of Smt. Promilla Madan, wherein Smt. Promilla Madan has been arrayed as defendant no.3 and, owing to her mental incapacity, is unable to defend her rights and interests in the said proceedings.

6. It is submitted that owing to her deteriorating mental and cognitive condition, Smt. Promilla Madan is no longer capable of managing her movable and immovable assets or attending to her financial affairs. It is further submitted that she is unable to understand, approve or sign documents and, consequently, despite availability of sufficient funds in her accounts, the same cannot be effectively utilized towards her regular medical treatment, care and other day-to-day requirements.

7. Pursuant to the order dated 25.07.2025 passed by this Court, a Medical Board comprising Dr. Vandana Chakravarty as Chairperson along with three other members was constituted to assess the medical condition of Smt. Promilla Madan. The Board examined Smt. Promilla Madan at her residence on 10.09.2025 and submitted its report dated 15.09.2025, wherein it opined that Ms. Promilla Madan is suffering from an advanced stage of dementia (severe to profound) and is entirely dependent upon a caretaker for basic activities of daily living.

8. For the sake of clarity, the report of the medical report is extracted as under: “A Multipal Medical Board was held on 10/09/2025 at 10.00 AM under the chairpersonship of Dr Vandana Chakravarty at residence of the patient Smt. Promila Madan w/o Late. Atul Madan, C-6 Greater Kailash Enclave-I, Greater Kailash, New Delhi- 110048. Smt. Promila Madan, 67 years, Female was thoroughly examined, detailed history taken and her medical records were reviewed. “On evaluation, the board is of the opinion that she is suffering an advanced stage of Dementia (severe to profound)”. No cognitive assessment could be done as the patient is in advanced stage of dementia and is dependent on a caretaker for basic activity of daily living.”

9. Before proceeding to examine the merits of the present petition, this Court deems it apposite to briefly advert to the settled legal position governing the exercise of parens patriae jurisdiction.

10. In S.D. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.,[1] this Court observed that the parens patriae jurisdiction is to be invoked in exceptional circumstances and exercised with due caution, particularly in cases involving persons suffering from mental incapacity. The Court noted that Constitutional Courts are empowered to exercise such jurisdiction where a person is unable to protect his or her interests or is vulnerable to abuse, neglect, coercion or undue influence.

11. While examining the scheme of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, [“RPWD Act”] the Court further observed that notwithstanding the statutory framework relating to appointment of guardians, the absence of an adequate mechanism for protection of mentally incapacitated adults would not denude the High Court of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to safeguard the interests of such vulnerable persons. The Court also underscored that the suitability and conduct of the proposed guardian assumes considerable significance and that a person having a conflict of interest or acting contrary to the welfare of the incapacitated individual ought not to be appointed as guardian. The relevant extract is reproduced as under:- “209. The Supreme Court therefore held that in order to invoke the parens patriae jurisdiction, exceptional circumstances have to exist. It quoted with approval the observations of the Supreme Court of Canada in E v. Eve (supra) that the said jurisdiction is carefully guarded and there shall be no presumption that the parens patriae jurisdiction is removed by legislation. The scope of parens patriae jurisdiction being unlimited, it has to be exercised with great caution and with enormous seriousness. The Supreme Court recognises that Constitutional Courts, including High Courts, can also act under their parens patriae jurisdiction to “meet the ends of justice”. Mental incompetency is listed as an exceptional circumstance which would justify the exercise of this jurisdiction. If the Court is satisfied that the person concerned is either being abused or neglected, parens patriae jurisdiction can be exercised. Even vulnerable adults can be protected under this jurisdiction if there are any factors that point towards undue influence, coercion, constraint etc.” “217. 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. The same could be determined by means of advance directives and in the absence of advance directives, facts and circumstances which point towards the wishes/intent of the concerned person. Thus, the “wills and preferences” of the mentally ill person have to be considered by the Court in deciding the manner in which care is to be given.” “220. In any event, this Court is of the opinion that the solemn nature of the said jurisdiction having been repeatedly recognised by the Supreme Court, the question as to which Court has to exercise it and in what manner is one of mere procedure. So long as the “wills and preferences” of the mentally ill person and the other factors set out in the rules are borne in mind by the Court exercising parens patriae jurisdiction, it cannot be held that the High Court exercising power under Article 226 is denuded of power in view of the 2021:DHC:3463 provisions of the RPWD-2016 Act or the Rules thereunder. 221. Thus, both, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226”

12. In Vijay Ramachandra Salgaonkar v. State,[2] the Bombay High Court was dealing with a petition seeking appointment of the petitioner as the legal guardian of his wife, who was suffering from vascular dementia, diabetes and hypertension and was stated to be in a vegetative condition rendering her incapable of managing her personal and financial affairs. Invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the doctrine of parens patriae, the Court observed that in the absence of an effective statutory mechanism governing guardianship of mentally incapacitated adults, it was imperative for the Constitutional Courts to step in and protect such vulnerable individuals. Accordingly, the petitioner therein was appointed as the legal guardian of his wife and was authorised to manage her bank accounts, properties and financial affairs exclusively for her welfare and benefit. The Court, however, emphasised that such jurisdiction must be exercised with considerable caution and only in exceptional circumstances.

13. In Pooja Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh,[3] the Allahabad High Court observed that the doctrine of parens patriae is required to be invoked sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances to meet the ends of justice. 2021 SCC Online Bom 14114 (2023) 2 HCC (All) 511 The Court recognised mental incapacity and vegetative condition as circumstances warranting exercise of such jurisdiction and observed that where a person is unable to protect his or her own interests owing to such incapacity, the Constitutional Courts may step in to safeguard the rights and welfare of such individual. The relevant extract is reproduced as under: “33. The Supreme Court in Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India, has explained difference between permanent vegetative state and minimal conscious state. Section 2(s) of the Rights of People with Disabilities Act, 2016 defines persons with disabilities. This category of persons are those who are able to interact though not fully coherent. Hence, guardian was to be appointed under Section 14 of the Act. However, for a person in comatose state, there is no interaction and the victim would not respond to any stimuli, hence, the provisions of personal disability defined under Section 2(s) of the Act cannot be said to be attracted in such cases. Therefore, in the larger interest of patient lying in comatose state, who is in urgent need of treatment, support and for that they need funds to take care of this extraordinary situation, which cannot be ignored or compromised, hence, the court is consciously bound to invoke power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to deal with such situation.” “37. The court further held that in order to invoke the parens patriae jurisdiction, exceptional circumstances have to exist. The scope of parens patriae jurisdiction has to be exercised with great caution and with enormous seriousness. The Supreme Court recognises that Constitutional Courts, including High Courts, can also act under their parens patriae jurisdiction to "meet the ends of justice". Mental incompetency is listed as an exceptional circumstance which would justify the exercise of this jurisdiction. If the court is satisfied that the person concerned is in a vegetative state, then surely "parens patriae" jurisdiction can be exercised.” “55. Thus, on a perusal of the medical report of husband of the petitioner and various decisions of other High Courts as well as this Court, it is clear that a constraint court may act as parens patriae so as to meet the ends of justice. The guidelines laid down by various courts in identical matters appear to be sound. Thus, we fix the following norms/guidelines for appointing the petitioner as guardian of her husband:”