Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 22.07.2026
BHAVNA GULATI & ANR. .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Arjeet Gaur, Mr. Jasbir Balhara & Mr. Prince Sharma, Advocates.
Through: Mr. Shashi Pratap Singh, Ms. Shagun Sabharwal, Ms. Anamika Tyagi &
Ms. Laqshiya Saluja, Advocates for GNCTD (through VC).
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ. (Oral)
JUDGMENT
1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The Application stands disposed of. CM APPL. 46234/2026 (Condonation of Delay)
3. Heard the learned Counsel for the Parties.
4. For the reasons disclosed in the Application seeking condonation of delay and having heard the learned Counsel for the Parties, the delay of 106 days in filing the Appeal is hereby condoned.
5. The Application stands disposed of.
6. This intra Court Appeal seeks to take an exception to an order dated 25.02.2026 (“Impugned Order”) passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.(C) 5959/2024 (“Writ Petition”) instituted by the Appellants.
7. The prayer made in the proceedings before the learned Single Judge was that a direction be issued to the Respondents to appoint Appellant No. 1 as guardian of the person and property of Appellant No. 2 for the reason that Appellant No. 2 has been suffering from Cerebral Palsy with Dolico Cephaly with seizures with Mental Retardation and 100% Locomotor Disability from birth. The said prayer was made in the Writ Petition for the reason that Appellant No. 1 is the sister of Appellant No. 2 and parents of Appellant No. 2 had already passed away.
8. Further, the submissions made before the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition was that Appellant No. 2 is diagnosed with Cerebral Palsy with Dolico Cephaly with seizures with Mental Retardation and he suffers from 100% Locomotor Disability from birth. It is also stated that Appellant No. 2 is not in a position to take care of himself and, therefore, the Respondents be directed to appoint Appellant No. 1 as guardian of Appellant No. 2.
9. All the aforesaid aspects were considered by the learned Single Judge and the prayer made therein for appointing Appellant No. 1 as guardian of Appellant No. 2 has not been acceded to.
10. Learned Single Judge has relied upon the provisions of Rule 17(1)(iii)(a) of the National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Rules, 2000 (“Rules”). The Impugned Order has also referred to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sunil Podar v. National Trust for the Welfare of Person with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities and Anr., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 832 and has, accordingly, come to the conclusion that, since Appellant No. 1 is not an Indian citizen, the direction sought by her in the Writ Petition could not be issued. The reasoning given by the learned Single Judge is based on the provisions of Rule 17(1)(iii)(a) of the Rules which provides that while taking a decision on the appointment of guardian, the local level committee shall ensure that the person whose name has been suggested for appointment as guardian is a citizen of India.
11. Admittedly, the Appellants are not citizens of India; rather Appellant No. 1 is a citizen of New Zealand. The aforesaid aspects were considered by this Court in Sunil Podar (supra) wherein the constitutional validity of Rule 17 of the Rules has been upheld and, accordingly, we are of the opinion that any claim of guardianship by a person who is not an Indian national cannot exist.
12. However, having observed as above, the fate of Appellant No. 2 cannot be left in a lurch. In this regard, a reference to the observations made in Paragraph Nos. 42, 43 and 44 of the judgment in Sunil Podar (supra) is relevant which are extracted herein below:
13. The judgment in Sunil Podar (supra) specifically provides that local level committee, in such circumstances, shall examine and evaluate the circumstances and surroundings of the person with disabilities and that the committee shall also advise adoption of such further measures as may be warranted bearing in mind the welfare, overall health and well-being of the person concerned. The court in the said matter had also left it open to the person claiming the guardianship who was not an Indian citizen, to nominate an Indian citizen who may be appointed as statutory guardian of the person suffering from disabilities with special needs.
14. The court further provided that any nomination that may be made in this respect shall be duly examined and considered by the local level committee. Further direction issued is that the statutory guardian when appointed, shall together with the person claiming the guardianship, be obliged to attend to the welfare and upbringing of the person concerned.
15. Accordingly, though various submissions have been made by learned Counsel for the Appellants notwithstanding the provisions contained in Rule 17(1)(iii)(a) of the Rules, it is the welfare of Appellant No. 2 which is paramount and, therefore, some mechanism may be devised by the court itself to ensure his welfare and well-being. The observations made and directions given in Paragraph Nos. 42, 43 and 44 of the judgment in Sunil Podar (supra) adequately take care of the concerns expressed by the learned Counsel for the Appellants. Accordingly, without interfering with the Impugned Order, we permit that in case Appellant No. 1 follows the procedure as provided in Paragraph Nos. 42, 43 and 44 of the judgment in Sunil Podar (supra), all requisite actions as may be warranted, shall be taken by the local level committee. We, further, reiterate, as already observed in Paragraph No. 4 of the Impugned Order that the arrangement as envisaged in the order dated 07.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition shall remain in force unless the same is modified by a competent court / authority.
16. At this juncture, we have been informed that presently both Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 are residing in Australia and the Australian visa issued to Appellant No. 2 has already expired.
17. We also observe that in case there are some visa related issues concerning Appellant No. 2, the Ministry of External Affairs and Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India will extend fullest cooperation to the Appellants.
18. The Appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ TEJAS KARIA, J JULY 22, 2026 ‘A’