Bombay High Court
Meena Bharat Mehta vs Union Of India Thr Its Department Of ... on 30 September, 2025
Author: R.I. Chagla
Bench: R.I. Chagla
2025:BHC-OS:16727-DB
JPP 16. WPL 25509.2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 25509 OF 2025
Meena Bharat Mehta and Anr. ... Petitioners
V/s.
Union of India and Ors. ... Respondents
_______________________________________
Mr. Sunny Shah with Mr. Viral Dilip Shukla, Ms. Priti Shukla, Mr. Rudra M.
Dani and Mr. Pradip Shukla i/b. Pradip Shukla & Co. for the Petitioners
Mr. D.P. Singh for Respondent No.1
Ms. Jyoti Chavan, Addl. G.P. for Respondent No.2 - State
_______________________________________
CORAM : R.I. CHAGLA AND
FARHAN P. DUBASH, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 22nd SEPTEMBER 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 30th SEPTEMBER 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 Meena Bharat Mehta - Petitioner No. 1,
as the legal guardian of her husband, Bharat Keshavlal Mehta -
Respondent No.3 and a further direction to all the Authorities, within
the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, to accept such
status for all purposes. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 herein, are the
daughters of Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.3.
JPP 16. WPL 25509.2025.doc
2. Mr. Sunny Shah, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that
Respondent No.3, who is 75 years of age, is diagnosed with
Alzheimer's Dementia which is stated to be uncurable and irreversible
and only progressive with age. He would further submit that
Respondent No.3 is physically, mentally, emotionally and financially
incapable of managing and administering his properties and is
completely dependent on the Petitioners. Accordingly, Mr. Shah seeks
to invoke the doctrine of 'parens patriae', as he contends that there is
no law for the time being in force in our country which provides for
appointment of a legal guardian of an adult with such disability. He
would further submit that since it was impossible to manage
Respondent No.3 at his residence, the Petitioners were advised to
admit him into an appropriate facility and as a result, since 2022,
Respondent No.3 has been admitted and continues to reside in
Nightingales Medical Trust Rehabilitation Centre at Bengaluru.
3. Mr. Shah further submits that considering the present medical
condition of Respondent No.3, it is imperative that his wife, Petitioner
No.1 be appointed as his legal guardian, as there are no provisions
under any other legislation including inter alia The Mental Health Care
Act, 2017; The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956; The
JPP 16. WPL 25509.2025.doc
National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Celebral Palsy,
Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999; The Right of
Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016; or The Mental Health Care Act,
2017, for appointing a spouse or child or sibling of an aged person
suffering from mental health issues like Alzheimer's Dementia, that
Respondent No.3 is suffering from in the present case, to be the legal
guardian of such person.
4. Mr. Shah has also invited our attention to a list of the movable and
immovable assets of Respondent No. 3, details of which are set out in
paragraph 5(b) of the present Writ Petition which inter alia includes a
Public Provident Fund (PPF) Account with the State Bank of
Hyderabad - Vile Parle branch; Senior Citizens Savings Scheme
Account with the Union Bank of India, Vile Parle branch; Savings
Bank Account with Union Bank of India - Vile Parle branch, and
dematerialized shares lying in a Demat Account with Axis Bank. The
said list of assets also includes an immovable property being
residential flat bearing no. 205 situated on the 2 nd floor of Pushpak
Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. located at Malviya Road, Vile Parle
(East), Mumbai 400 057.
JPP 16. WPL 25509.2025.doc
5. Mr. Shah, on instructions of Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 states that they
are agreeable that their mother, Petitioner No.1 be appointed by this
Court, as the legal guardian of their father, Respondent No.3, as
prayed for in the present Writ Petition. Mr. D. P. Singh, learned
Counsel appears for Respondent No.1 - Union of India and Ms. Jyoti
Chavan, Addl. Government Pleader appears for Respondent No.2 -
State.
6. Considering the nature of the reliefs sought in the present Writ
Petition, and so as to ascertain the present medical condition of
Respondent No.4, an order came to be passed by this Court on 20 th
August 2025, directing the Dean of the National Institute of Mental
Health and Neurosciences (NIMHANS), Bengaluru - Respondent No.4,
to constitute a Medical Board comprising of a Neurologist and visit the
said Nightingales Medical Trust Rehabilitation Centre where
Respondent No.3 was residing and after examining him, submit a
report to this Court.
7. Pursuant thereto, an Assessment Report dated 9 th September 2025
(but signed on 10th September 2025) is placed on record by the
Medical Superintendent, NIMHANS (Assessment Report) under cover
of his letter of even date which was forwarded by him to the Registrar
JPP 16. WPL 25509.2025.doc
- Judicial of this Court vide an email of the same date. A perusal of
this Assessment Report would reveal that pursuant to the said order, a
Medical Board was constituted and as a preliminary investigation, Dr.
Faheem Arshad, Asst. Professor of Neurology, NIMHANS had visited
the Nightingales Medical Trust Rehabilitation Centre at Bengaluru to
understand the status of Respondent No.3 to consider for clinical
examination. It is further stated therein that after the said preliminary
examination, a systematic and more detailed examination of
Respondent No.3 would be required to be performed before a
comprehensive report is given but for which, Respondent No.3 would
have to be admitted into NIMHANS for a detailed evaluation.
8. A perusal of the said Assessment Report would reveal that it is not
only signed by the said Dr. Faheem Arshad but also by Dr. P. S.
Mathvrath, Professor and Head of the Department of Neurology at
NIMHANS, Bengaluru. This Assessment Report expressly certifies that
Respondent No.3 is unable to communicate, comprehend or take care
of his personal hygiene, and requires complete assistance for all his
activities of daily living. The said Assessment Report further discloses
that the neurological examination of Respondent No.3 shows
disorientation to time, place and person, inability to verbalize or
JPP 16. WPL 25509.2025.doc
follow commands, and generalized rigidity and in view of his said
current condition, it concludes that Respondent No.3 is not amenable
for a higher mental function assessment. The said Assessment Report
further reveals that his clinical dementia rating score is 3, which
suggests 'Advanced Dementia' whereas, his global disability
percentage, assessed using the Indian Disability Evaluation and
Assessment Scale (IDEAS) score is 100% which reveals 'Profound
disability'. The said Assessment Report therefore concludes that, on
the basis of the overall assessment of Respondent No.3 conducted by
the Medical Board, he is entirely dependent on his caregivers for all his
basic needs since he has lost the capacity for independent decision
making and since he also lacks the ability to manage his personal or
medical issues. The Assessment Report dated 9 th September 2025 (but
signed on 10th September 2025) is taken on record together with the
covering letter of even date and marked "X" for identification. We
accept the contents of this Assessment Report.
9. We have heard the parties and perused the record available before us,
with their able assistance. Upon considering the facts of this case and
the present condition of Respondent No.3, as disclosed in the
Assessment Report also, we are of the considered view that
JPP 16. WPL 25509.2025.doc
Respondent No.3 ought not to be put to any further hardship and
inconvenience of getting admitted into a new facility at NIMHANS,
albeit temporarily, so that a detailed evaluation can be carried out on
his present medical condition, only to provide a more comprehensive
report. The findings and observations in the Assessment Report
sufficiently disclose the present medical condition of Respondent No.3
and this Court is satisfied with the same, moreso when, there is no
opposition from the Respondents.
10. The submission of Mr. Shah that there is no provision under the
prevailing laws for appointing a spouse or child or sibling of a person
suffering from mental health issues like Alzheimer's Dementia, to be
the legal guardian of such a person, appears to be correct. In this
context, we note that despite several legislations which concern the
welfare of such persons who are incapable of taking care of
themselves, none of them deal with and/or prescribe for the grant of
reliefs, akin to those sought by the Petitioners in the present Writ
Petition. In this context, we may note the relevant legislations, which
concern the welfare of persons who are incapable of taking care of
themselves:
JPP 16. WPL 25509.2025.doc
(i) The Guardian and Wards Act, 1980 inter alia deals with the
appointment of a guardian for person and property, albeit, only
in the case of minors.
(ii) Similarly, The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 also
contains provisions under which, natural guardians can be
appointed, albeit only of a minor and in respect of his person
and his property
(iii) The National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Celebral
Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999
deals with persons suffering from the ailments that are included
in the name of the Act which would not apply to a person
suffering from Alzheimer's Dementia.
(iv) The Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 would also not
apply to a person suffering from Alzheimer's Dementia since this
Act specifically defines 'Persons with Disabilities' in Section 2(s)
to mean a person with long term physical, mental, intellectual
or sensory impairment which, in interaction with barriers,
hinders his full and effective participation in society equally with
others. Although Section 14 of this Act provides for appointment
of a guardian, albeit, for a limited purpose only, such decision is
required to be a joint decision between the guardian and the
JPP 16. WPL 25509.2025.doc
person with disability which is limited to a specific period and
for specific decisions and situations and would operate in
accordance with the will of the person with disability.
(v) The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 is another legislation which
provides for mental health care and services to persons with
mental illness and to protect, promote and fulfill the rights of
such persons during the delivery of mental healthcare and
services and for matters connected therewith or incidental
thereto. Here again, Section 2(s) of this Act defines the term
'mental illness' to mean a substantial disorder of thinking, mood,
perception, orientation or memory that grossly impairs
judgment, behaviour, capacity to recognize reality or ability to
meet the ordinary demands of life, mental conditions associated
with the abuse of alcohol and drugs, but does not include
mental retardation which is a condition of arrested or
incomplete development of mind of a person, specially
characterized by sub-normality of intelligence. Thus, a person
suffering from Alzheimer would also not be entitled to invoke
the provisions of this Act for seeking the reliefs that are sought
in the present Writ Petition.
JPP 16. WPL 25509.2025.doc
11. It is thus clearly seen that neither of the legislations discussed above,
provide for a concrete mechanism for appointment of a legal guardian
of a person who is medically incapacitated to take his/her own
decisions and manage their properties. Such a vacuum in law,
however, cannot be permitted to adversely affect the pressing human
needs of such persons like Respondent No.3 in the present case.
12. In circumstances like these, our Courts have consistently tackled these
situations and exercised its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India to appoint a legal guardian of such a
person suffering with serious medical disabilities. Such a course of
action would undoubtedly be in the interest of survival of the person
who is completely dependent on others.
13. However, whilst exercising such jurisdiction, the High Courts have
invoked the doctrine of 'parens patriae'. For the sake of ready
reference, the doctrine of 'parens patriae', as described in the Black's
Law Dictionary is set out hereunder :-
" parens patriae (par-enz pay-tree-ee or pa-tree-i). [Latin
"parent of his or her country"]. 1. The State regarded as a
sovereign; the state in its capacity as provider of protection to
those unable to care for themselves the attorney general acted
as parens patriae in the administrative hearing; in Roam Law,
the emperor. [Cases: States <=. C.J.S. States; 2. 16.] 2. A
JPP 16. WPL 25509.2025.doc
doctrine by which a government has standing to prosecute a
lawsuit on behalf of a citizen, especially on behalf of someone
who is under a legal disability to prosecute the suit. <parens
partiae allowed the state to institute proceedings> The State
ordinarily has no standing to sue on behalf of its citizens, unless
a separate, sovereign interest will be served by the suit. - Also
termed doctrine of parens patriae. [] cASES: Infants<+2;
States<= 190. c.j.s. Infants; 12, 108, 198; States; 297, 314.]"
14. In the case of Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug Vs. Union of India 1 which
was a case of comatose lady, the Supreme Court invoked the doctrine
of parens patriae and observed thus:
"130. In our opinion, in the case of an incompetent
person who is unable to take a decision whether to withdraw
life support or not, it the Court alone, as parens patriae, which
ultimately must take this decision, though, no doubt, the views
of the near relatives, next friend and doctors must be given due
weight".
15. A Division Bench of this Court in Vijay Ramchandra Salgaonkar Vs.
State2 was concerned with a similar situation, where the Petitioner
therein had sought a direction to declare him as the legal guardian of
his wife who was described to be 'living dead' since she was suffering
from Vascular Dementia with Diabetes Mellitus and Hypertension and
because of her debilitating health condition, she was unable to take of
herself, much less of her property. Whilst passing this Judgment, the
(2011) 4 SCC 454
Writ Petition No. 637 of 2021 - Judgment dated 17th July 2021
JPP 16. WPL 25509.2025.doc
Division Bench, after referring to various decisions of other Courts, as
also earlier decisions of this Court, observed that there was no
legislation in India relating to the appointment of guardian of patients
lying in comatose or vegetative stage whilst appointing the Petitioner
therein, as the legal guardian of his wife.
16. In another decision in Anushka Rajiv Mohite Vs. Union of India and
Ors.3 which was concerning a person suffering from Alzheimer's
disease, this Court appointed the Petitioner therein, who was her
daughter and only child and who was taking care of her mother's day-
to-day needs and also incurring expenses on her medical treatment, as
the legal guardian, after invoking the doctrine of parens patriae.
17. Similarly, in a matter decided by another Division Bench of this Court
in Purnima Kantharia Vs. Union of India and Ors. 4, the daughter of a
person who was at an advanced stage of dementia was appointed as
her legal guardian, albeit with the consent of the other legal heirs.
18. Lastly, in another matter decided by a co-ordinate Division Bench of
this Court in Mayuresh Dipak Nadkarni vs. Union of Indian and Ors. 5,
which concerned a person suffering from Alzheimer's disease, the
Writ Petition (Stamp) No.25114 of 2023 - Judgment dated 6th October 2023
(2022) SCC OnLine Bom. 10647
Writ Petition (L) No. 140 of 2024 - Judgment dated 12th January 2024
JPP 16. WPL 25509.2025.doc
Court, after discussing a majority of the judgments mentioned above,
invoked the doctrine of parens patriae and appointed the son of such
person, as his legal guardian since the wife of such person, being a
senior citizen was unable to take care of him and the other son of such
person was based in a foreign country and unable to look after his
father.
19. In light of the above discussion, we see no harm in appointing
Petitioner No.1 as the legal guardian of her husband. In the present
case, there is no dispute on facts inasmuch as, Respondent No. 3 is
already certified by the Medical Board to be suffering from Advanced
Alzheimer's disease and unable to function normally and is completely
dependent on others. In these circumstances, Petitioner No. 1 is taking
care of her husband at this stage in his life. The decisions as noted by
us above, would squarely apply to the facts of the present case
inasmuch as, they reveal that this Court is not powerless to resolve
such human problems and difficulties which arise in regard to such
persons and their property, considering the medical conditions they
suffer. The law would thus come to the aid of Respondent No.3 in
managing his properties by his wife, by appointing her, his legal
guardian.
JPP 16. WPL 25509.2025.doc
20. In the present case, the Petitioners are stated to be the only legal heirs
and representatives of Respondent No.3. They seek the appointment of
Petitioner No.1 as the legal guardian of her husband since Respondent
No.3 is completely dependent upon her (and the other Petitioners) for
all purposes.
21. Considering the legal and factual position recorded above and more
particularly, the Assessment Report dated 9th September 2025 (signed
on 10th September 2025) filed by the Medical Board constituted
pursuant to the order dated 20th August 2025, this Court has no
hesitation in granting the relief sought in the present Writ Petition and
appointing Meena Bharat Mehta - Petitioner No. 1 as the legal
guardian of the person and properties, both movable and immovable,
of her husband, Bharat Keshavlal Mehta - Respondent No. 3. In light
of the above discussion, we allow that the present Writ Petition in
terms of the following directions :
:: ORDER ::
(i) Meena Bharat Mehta - Petitioner No. 1 herein, is hereby
appointed as the legal guardian of her husband, Bharat
Keshavlal Mehta - Respondent No. 3 herein.
JPP 16. WPL 25509.2025.doc
(ii) All Authorities shall accept Meena Bharat Mehta as the legal
guardian of her husband, Bharat Keshavlal Mehta and allow her
to operate his bank accounts and other accounts and also
manage his movable and immovable properties, as set out in
paragraph 4 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. )
JYOTI by JYOTI
PRAKASH
PRAKASH PAWAR
PAWAR Date: 2025.09.30
12:53:40 +0530
