Bombay High Court
Preeti Sahota vs Union Of India Through The Secretary ... on 11 November, 2025
Author: R.I. Chagla
Bench: R.I. Chagla
2025:BHC-OS:20674-DB
JYOTI
PRAKASH
PAWAR
Digitally signed by
JYOTI PRAKASH
PAWAR
Date: 2025.11.12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
10:57:18 +0530
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 23617 OF 2025
Preeti Sahota ... Petitioner
V/s.
Union of India and Ors. ... Respondents
_______________________________________
Mr. Akshay Doctor a/w Mr. Parag Sawant, Mr. Hardik Shah,
Ms. Charmi Gala and Mr. Bhumanyu Champawat i/b PS Chambers for
the Petitioner
Ms. Gargi Warunjikar for Respondent No.1 - UOI
Mr. Prashant Kamble, AGP for Respondent No.2 - State
_______________________________________
CORAM : R.I. CHAGLA AND
FARHAN P. DUBASH, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 7TH NOVEMBER 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 11TH NOVEMBER 2025
ORDER (Per Farhan P. Dubash J.) :
1. The present Writ Petition invokes the extra-ordinary jurisdiction
exercised by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and seeks
the appointment of the Petitioner viz. Preeti Sahota as the legal guardian of
her husband, Ashit Vikrambhai Dalal (patient) with authority to represent him
and act on his behalf in all matters pertaining to his treatment, financial
affairs, properties and personal welfare. The Petition also seeks a further
direction to all the Authorities within the meaning of Article 12 of the
Constitution of India to accept such status of the Petitioner for all purposes and
allow the Petitioner to manage the patient's moveable and immovable
properties. Respondent No. 4 and 5 are the parents of the Petitioner who are
residing in Chandigarh and who are stated to be looking after the patient since
the Petitioner resides in Dubai for her employment purposes along with their
two children. The parents of the patient have already predeceased him.
2. The Petition asserts that the patient, who is 67 years of age,
suffered from a right thalamus and brainstem bleeding causing coma and
paralysis over his whole body on 19 May 2025. The patient is stated to be in a
vegetative condition ever since and there has been very little progress in his
health condition till date. Considering the nature of the reliefs sought in the
present Writ Petition and so as to verify the medical condition of the patient,
an order came to be passed by this Court on 25 th August 2025 directing the
Authorities of the Government Medical College & Hospital, Chandigarh to
constitute a Medical Board, comprising of at least one Neurologist, to examine
the patient and submit a Medical Report on his present mental condition.
Considering the medical condition of the patient, the members of the Medical
Board were requested to be deputed to examine the patient at the ACE Heart
and Vascular Institute, Mohali, Chandigarh where the patient was lying in a
coma and undergoing treatment.
3. Pursuant thereto, the Government Medical College & Hospital,
Chandigarh has submitted the Medical Report dated 12 September 2025 to this
Court, under a cover of its letter of even date, addressed by its Medical
Superintendent.
4. A perusal of this Medical Report, which is signed by Dr. Ishreen Ahuja
(Assistant Professor - Department of General Medicine), Dr. Vipin Gupta
(Assistant Professor - Department of Neurosurgery) and Dr. Jaskaran Singh
(Assistant Professor - Department of Cardiology) would reveal that the patient
was examined on 11 September 2025 and a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) Test
was conducted to evaluate his neurological status. The three parameters
assessed under this Test include (i) eye opening, (ii) verbal response and (iii)
best motor response. The Medical Report indicates that the patient's result of
the GCS test has been examined as "E1 VT M3" wherein 'E1' indicates that the
patient is unable to open his eyes even in response to a painful stimulus, 'VT'
indicates that the patient is a tracheostomized patient and as a result, he
cannot be assessed for an appropriate verbal response from the patient and
'M3' indicates that the patient shows abnormal flexion of limbs in response to
pain. The medical report also concludes that the patient has left hemiparesis, is
tracheostomized, is maintaining oxygen saturation on room air, and is
receiving feeds through a Ryle's tube.
5. The Petitioner has raised a contention that there is no statutory
provision under the prevalent laws for a mentally disabled person who is in a
vegetative and comatose condition to be taken care by a guardian and has
accordingly requested this Court to appoint her as a legal guardian of the
patient.
6. Mr. Akshay Doctor, learned counsel who appears on behalf of the
Petitioner invites our attention to Exhibit "R" of the present Writ Petition which
sets out the details of the movable and immovable properties presently owned
by the patient and which interalia includes a residential flat situated at F/05,
3rd Floor, Triveni, 66, Walkeshwar Road, Malabar Hil, Mumbai - 400006;
Savings Bank accounts with several banks viz. HDFC Bank - Chowpatty
Branch, HSBC India - Peddar Road Branch, Bank of Baroda - Walkeshwar
Branch, Indus Ind Bank - Opera House Branch, Central Bank of India -
Babulnath Branch, ICICI NRE Bank - Opera House Branch and an account at
Indian Overseas Bank, details of which are more particularly listed therein;
together with a Provident Fund Account whose details are also set out therein.
7. In an earlier Judgment of this Court pronounced on 29 September
2025 in Meena Bharat Mehta and Another vs. Union of India & Ors. passed in
Writ Petition (L) No. 25509 of 2025, this Court had considered a similar
situation where the patient in that case suffered from Alzheimer's Dementia.
After a detailed analysis of the relevant legislations in the country concerning
the welfare of persons who are incapable of taking care of themselves and by
invoking the doctrine of 'parens patriae', this Court exercised its extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and appointed the
wife of such patient, as his legal guardian after relying upon several past
pronouncements of this Court. The said Judgment would squarely also apply
to the present case where the Petitioner who is the wife of the patient is
seeking her appointment as the legal guardian of her husband.
8. In another Judgment of this Court pronounced on 17 October 2025 in
Amisha Gopal Ahuja and Another vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. passed in
Writ Petition (L) No. 28372 of 2025, this Court considered a similar situation
where the patient in that case suffered from multiple debilitating chronic
medical and psychiatric conditions including inter-alia schizophrenia and
appointed his daughters, as his legal guardians. Similarly, in another
Judgment of this Court pronounced on 4 November 2025 in Sanjay Narahar
Malshe and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. passed in Writ Petition (L) No.
31305 of 2025, this Court appointed the son of a patient, who was his mother
and suffering from dementia, as her legal guardian.
9. Considering the legal position laid down in the aforementioned
decisions of this Court in Meena Bharat Mehta (supra), Amisha Gopal Ahuja
(supra), Sanjay Narahar Malshe (supra) and the factual position recorded
above and after noting the contents of the Medical Report dated 12 September
2025 submitted by the Government Medical College & Hospital, Chandigarh,
this Court deems it fit to allow the present Writ Petition and appoint the
Petitioner as the legal guardian of the person and properties, both movable and
immovable, of her husband, Ashit Vikrambhai Dalal.
10. Accordingly, the following order is passed: -
ORDER
(i) Preeti Sahota, Petitioner herein is appointed as the legal guardian
of her husband, Ashit Vikrambhai Dalal.
(ii) All authorities shall accept Preeti Sahota as the legal guardian of
her husband, Ashit Vikrambhai Dalal and permit her to operate his
bank accounts and other accounts and also open a new account, if
she so desires and also manage his movable and immovable
properties that are set out in Exhibit "R" to the present Writ
Petition and also in paragraph 6 of this order.
(iii) The present Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of in the above
terms.
(iv) There shall be no order as to costs.
( FARHAN P. DUBASH, J. ) ( R.I. CHAGLA J. )
