Orissa High Court
Constitution Of India vs Ministry Of Health And Family .... ... on 9 May, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 14-May-2025 18:57:32
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.24656 of 2024
(In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950)
Epari Sushma .... Petitioner
-versus-
Ministry of Health and Family .... Opposite Party (s)
Welfare & Ors.
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Soumya Sekhar Parida, Adv.
For Opposite Party (s) : Ms. Sulochana Patra, CGC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-19.03.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT: -09.05.2025
Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.
1. The Petitioner, by way of the present Writ Petition, seeks a direction
from this Court to appoint her as the legal guardian/representative of
her husband, who is presently in a comatose or vegetative state.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief fact of the case is that:
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
(i). The Petitioner's husband, Mr. Suresh Kumar Epari is currently in a
comatose/vegetative state with no medical indication or reasonable
prospect of revival. As a result of his sudden and severe medical
condition, he is entirely physically incapacitated, incapable of
communication, decision-making, or execution of documents.
(ii). The Petitioner has been compelled to incur substantial and ongoing
medical expenses while simultaneously managing household
responsibilities and the educational needs of their dependent son, Mr.
Sukrut Epari, who is presently pursuing a B.B.A. LL.B. degree.
(iii). Mr. Suresh Kumar Epari is a businessman actively engaged in multiple
enterprises. He is the sole proprietor of M/s. Kalinga Royale, a
construction business, the managing partner of M/s. Epari Govindam &
Sons, and the owner of a commercial property located at #78, Janpath,
Kharvelnagar, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, which generates rental income. In
all his business concerns, his shareholding is either full or joint (50%).
Several immovable properties stand in his name, though their transfer
and registration are pending. His business obligations require regular
execution of sale deeds, payments to contractors, suppliers, employees,
and the remittance of applicable taxes, particularly in relation to an
ongoing apartment construction project. The Orissa Real Estate
Regulatory Authority (ORERA) has mandated that the said construction
be completed by 31.05.2025, with legal consequences in case of non-
compliance.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
(iv). On 26.01.2024, Mr. Epari was admitted to Ashwini Hospital, C.D.A.,
Cuttack, after being diagnosed with pneumothorax (fluid accumulation
in the lungs). During treatment, his condition worsened due to a rise in
creatinine and urea levels, necessitating dialysis and intensive care
owing to multiple organ failure. On medical advice, he was airlifted to
Medanta Hospital, Gurugram, Haryana on 01.02.2024, where he
suffered a cardiac arrest. Though successfully revived by a team led by
Dr. Anand Jaiswal, Senior Consultant in Pulmonology, he remained
unconscious and has since been in a vegetative state, requiring
ventilator support and constant monitoring across various ICUs.
(v). Despite extensive treatment at Medanta Hospital, including surgeries
and continued care, Mr. Epari did not show neurological improvement.
On 22.04.2024, he was discharged in a bedridden state with a
tracheostomy in place and being fed via nasogastric tube. He was
subsequently airlifted to Apollo Hospital, Arilova, Visakhapatnam, for
further management under a team led by Dr. Atchyutha from the
Pulmonology and Neurology departments. Upon discharge on
15.05.2024, home-based intensive medical care was recommended,
involving installation of necessary equipment and medical personnel
from Medanta Hospital's Home Care Department.
(vi). From 15.05.2024 to 31.07.2024, the Petitioner and her husband resided at
a rented apartment (Flat No. A1, Sagarika Apartments,
Pandurangapuram, Visakhapatnam), where he remained under round-
the-clock care provided by Dr. Anitha (General Physician), Dr.
Vamshidhar (Nephrologist), and Dr. Shiva (Physiotherapist). On
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
31.07.2024, Mr. Epari was transported back to his residence in Cuttack,
Odisha, accompanied by medical staff, and continues to be under the
medical supervision of doctors from Apollo Hospital, Visakhapatnam
and Medanta Hospital, Gurugram. Despite all treatment efforts, Mr.
Epari has remained in a vegetative state since 02.02.2024.
(vii). In view of his persistent incapacitation, the Petitioner is now compelled
to take over his financial, legal, and business responsibilities, which
include, inter alia, paying statutory dues, meeting operational expenses,
executing legal documents, and ensuring compliance with obligations
under ORERA and other regulatory bodies. These functions are critical
for the sustenance of the family and the continuity of his business
operations. The Petitioner's inability to act on his behalf, without legal
authorization, poses a serious risk of financial loss and legal non-
compliance.
(viii). Accordingly, the Petitioner seeks to be appointed as the legal
guardian/representative/attorney of her husband, Mr. Suresh Kumar
Epari, to act on his behalf in all matters including legal, commercial,
statutory, and financial transactions. The Petitioner further prays that
this Court may be pleased to issue appropriate directions to the
concerned authorities and institutions to recognize the Petitioner's legal
authority to represent her husband in view of his medical
incapacitation. The Petitioner submits that the present application arises
from an unforeseen medical catastrophe, leaving the family without any
other viable means of sustenance.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
II. SUBMISSIONS OF THE RIVAL PARTIES:
3. The Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the medical expenses
incurred in looking after Suresh Kumar Epari, the husband of the
petitioner, are quite substantial, and he continues to remain in a
vegetative condition. As a result of his current state, he is unable to use
his intellect, communicate, or execute documents. Accordingly, the
petitioner is required to act as his guardian in order to safeguard his
business interests, operate his bank accounts, make payments to
discharge business liabilities, meet business requisitions, pay taxes,
suppliers, employees, and attend to other financial responsibilities on
his behalf, while also looking after the needs of the family. The
petitioner must further attend to her husband's duties in running his
business, specifically to comply with statutory conditions imposed by
ORERA, which require completion of construction by 31.05.2025 and
execution of sale deeds in favour of the buyers, along with post-legal
and statutory compliances.
4. The sudden and unforeseen ailment of her husband, Mr. Suresh Kumar
Epari, has rendered him to a vegetative state, a condition neither
expected nor anticipated. The petitioner now faces an uncertain future,
devoid of any source of income to meet the ongoing medical expenses
of her husband, household needs, and the educational expenses of their
son.
5. It is also submitted that the petitioner's son, having attained majority,
has consented to the appointment of the petitioner as the guardian of
Mr. Suresh Kumar Epari. Despite being in a vegetative state, Mr. Epari
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
retains his fundamental right to live with dignity. The petitioner, being
his wife, bears legal, moral, familial, and societal obligations to care for
him and the family. Without a stable income, the petitioner is unable to
meet these essential expenses.
6. There being no specific statutory provision for the appointment of a
guardian to care for individuals in a bedridden or vegetative condition,
the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, seeking recognition of her husband's right to live
with dignity. In pursuit of this objective, she seeks to be appointed as
his Guardian/Representative.
7. Per centra, the Opposite Parties have not filed any counter affidavit in
the present proceeding. It is evident that the respondents have not
controverted or challenged the foundational facts as pleaded by the
petitioner. Their objection is confined solely to the maintainability of the
relief(s) sought before this forum. In the absence of any rebuttal to the
petitioner's factual assertions, the Court shall proceed on the
presumption that the said facts are true and correct.
III. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
8. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents
placed before this Court.
9. In the eyes of law, as in the deeper moral and cultural consciousness of
society, a husband and wife are equal partners in the institution of
marriage. This partnership is not merely contractual but spiritual,
emotional, and existential. The wife is not only a companion but also, as
ancient Indian philosophy describes, the Ardhangini, the other half of
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
the husband. The very word "Ardhangini" derives from the Sanskrit
roots ardha (half) and ang (body), signifying that the wife is not a
separate entity but one half of a composite whole. This concept finds
powerful embodiment in the divine form of Ardhanarishvara, where
Lord Shiva and Goddess Parvati unite as a single form representing the
indivisible synthesis of the masculine and feminine energies: Shiva and
Shakti.
10. Similarly, in biblical tradition, the Book of Genesis describes the
creation of woman from the rib of man, signifying not subordination
but intrinsic unity and equality: "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of
my flesh". The conception of marriage is that of a sacred covenant where
"the two shall become one flesh". In both these traditions, the wife is
envisioned not merely as a dependent but as an indispensable and
divinely sanctioned counterpart to the husband.
11. In this regard, the Bombay High Court in the case of Rajni Hariom
Sharma v. Union of India1, had a similar view, and held as follows:
"22. According to Hindu vedic philosophy, marriage is a
sanskar or a sacrament. What is essentially contemplated is
a union of two souls. The eternal being is composed of two
halves i.e., the man and the woman. Both the halves are
equal and one-half is incomplete without the other. As long
as the wife survives, one half of the husband survives.
Ancient Hindu tradition says that a man's life can never be
complete without a wife i.e., his Ardhangini or his better
half. They are considered to be equal partners. Wife is not
only considered to be Ardhangini but is also referred to as
'Sahadharmini'. Literal meaning of the concept of
2020 SCC OnLine Bom 880.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Ardhangini is that a Hindu woman is associated with her
husband in the journey of life for fulfillment and for
attainment of all goals. She is also referred to as Sahayogini
co-operating with her husband in all his activities as well as
a Sahakarmini which means having an equal share in the
actions of her husband. Together they are referred as
Dampati. In Manusmriti, Manu had declared the wife as
not just Patni but Dharmapatni meaning thereby that
under dharma she is under obligation to discharge and
perform all duties of her husband."
12. The abovementioned precedent makes it clear that when a husband falls
into a comatose or vegetative state, losing the ability to exercise reason,
make decisions, or act on his own behalf, there can be no person more
naturally, morally, or legally suited than the wife to act as his guardian.
She has shared in his life, his burdens, his responsibilities, and his
dreams. She is likely to understand his values, intentions, and wishes
more than any other individual. Her appointment as guardian is not
only an act of legal necessity but also one of moral imperative and social
logic.
13. However, the guardianship of the husband cannot be granted to the
wife solely on the basis of cultural or religious considerations. It is
incumbent upon the Court to examine the matter within the framework
of law and determine the question of guardianship in accordance with
legal principles and statutory mandates.
14. From a lay perspective, there exists little distinction between a comatose
condition and a vegetative state, as both reflect a state of profound
unconsciousness and absence of cognitive function. While medical
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
science may differentiate the two based on clinical criteria, both
conditions render the individual incapable of communication, decision-
making, or meaningful interaction with the environment. In functional
terms, they result in a complete loss of personal agency, necessitating
the appointment of a substitute decision-maker. The petitioner,
therefore, seeks to be appointed as the guardian and representative of
her husband, who remains in a vegetative state and is medically
incapacitated, analogous to a person in a coma.
15. Now, the factual position remains undisputed, as the opposite party has
not attempted to controvert the same. The medical condition of the
petitioner's husband, characterized by unresponsiveness and cognitive
incapacity, has been clearly and authoritatively detailed in the medical
certificate dated 19.07.2024, issued by Dr. Atchyuth R. Gongada (MD,
FRCA), Senior Consultant and Head of the Department of Intensive
Care and Anaesthesiology, Apollo Hospitals, Visakhapatnam. The
relevant excerpt from the said certificate is reproduced hereinbelow for
ready reference:
"This is to confirm that Mr. Suresh Kumar Epari M/53 yrs
was admitted to Apollo Hospitals on 22/04/24 and he was
treated on ICU and wards till 15/06/24. He was discharged
home with nursing help at home. He was re-admitted to
hospital on 16/06/24 till 20/06/24. He is now at home with
24 Hr nurses' help for his life activities.
I saw this patient on 18/07/24 at in Apollo Hospital. He was
brought by his wife, with the help of a male nurse and a
male domestic help, on a wheel chair. He is not able to
communicate in writing or verbally. He is taking a
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
long time to understand verbal input. He has shown
significant improvement in his mental status since his
discharge from the hospital." (Emphasis supplied)
16. Now, in the absence of specific and comprehensive legislation
governing the appointment of guardians or representatives for
individuals in a comatose or vegetative state, the judiciary has
frequently been confronted with complex situations concerning the
management and administration of properties owned by such
incapacitated persons. The legal vacuum in this area has resulted in a
lack of uniformity and predictability, thereby compelling courts to
adjudicate these sensitive matters on a case-by-case basis. In doing so,
the courts have had to rely on constitutional principles, equitable
considerations, and the broader intent of personal and proprietary
rights to arrive at just and pragmatic solutions in the interest of the
incapacitated individual.
17. In Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India & Ors.2, the
Supreme Court addressed the legal vacuum surrounding the rights and
care of individuals in a comatose state. Section 2(s) of the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 defines "persons with disabilities" as
those who have long-term impairments which, in interaction with
various barriers, may hinder their full and effective participation in
society. However, this statutory definition presumes a degree of
responsiveness or interaction, albeit limited. In contrast, individuals in a
comatose or vegetative state are entirely unresponsive and incapable of
2011 INSC 187.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
interaction or decision-making. Consequently, such persons fall outside
the ambit of the said statutory framework, including the appointment of
a guardian under Section 14 of the Act.
18. Given this legislative gap, and recognizing the urgent need for financial
and medical decisions to be made in the best interest of the
incapacitated individual, the Court has no alternative but to invoke its
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
19. The silence of the statute cannot become a justification for denial of
relief when the life, dignity and welfare of an incapacitated person are
at stake. In such exceptional situations, the Court must rise above
procedural formalities and act in furtherance of justice by invoking its
constitutional jurisdiction in a manner that safeguards the rights of the
most vulnerable. This duty finds expression in the doctrine of parens
patriae which allows Constitutional Courts to step in as the ultimate
protector of those who cannot speak or act for themselves.
20. The Supreme Court in Shafin Jahan v. Ashokan K.M. & Ors.3, the Court
has considered the scope of 'parens patriae' jurisdiction and has observed
as under:
"39. Constitutional Courts in this country exercise parens
patriae jurisdiction in matters of child custody treating the
welfare of the child as the paramount concern. There are
situations when the Court can invoke the parens patriae
principle and the same is required to be invoked only in
exceptional situations. We may like to give some examples.
For example, where a person is mentally ill and is produced
before the court in a writ of habeas corpus, the court may
AIR 2018 SC 1933.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
invoke the aforesaid doctrine. On certain other occasions,
when a girl who is not a major has eloped with a person and
she is produced at the behest of habeas corpus filed by her
parents and she expresses fear of life in the custody of her
parents, the court may exercise the jurisdiction to send her
to an appropriate home meant to give shelter to women
where her interest can be best taken care of till she becomes a
major.
While the scope of the parens partiae jurisdiction is
unlimited, the jurisdiction must nonetheless be exercised in
accordance with its underlying principle. The discretion
given under this jurisdiction is to be exercised for the benefit
of the person in need of protection and not for the benefit of
others. It must at all times be exercised with great caution, a
caution that must increase with the seriousness of the
matter. This is particularly so in cases where a court might
be tempted to act because failure to act would risk imposing
an obviously heavy burden on another person."
21. The Court further held that in order to invoke the parens patriae
jurisdiction, exceptional circumstances have to exist. The scope of this
jurisdiction has to be exercised with great caution and with enormous
seriousness. The Supreme Court further 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.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
22. Identical situations have arisen earlier also into various parts of the
country. Different High Courts while dealing with such identical
situations has passed the following orders.
23. In Shobha Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala and Ors4, the Kerala High
Court considered the case of a patient in a comatose state, whose family
was facing grave difficulties in arranging the necessary finances for his
continued medical treatment and life support. The patient, being the
sole breadwinner of the family, owned immovable properties; however,
his family members were legally incapacitated from dealing with the
said assets due to the absence of statutory authority or guardianship,
thereby encountering insurmountable legal hurdles. The Court further
observed the legal lacuna in India, highlighting the absence of any
statutory provision or legislative framework enabling the appointment
of a guardian for persons in a comatose or vegetative condition. The
Kerala High Court invoked its parens patriae jurisdiction and framed
detailed guidelines to address such exigencies in future cases:
"Coming to the incidental aspects; 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', based on the inputs gathered by this Court
from different corners, as suggested by the learned counsel
for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader and also
by the learned Amicus Curiae, till the field is taken over by
proper legislation in this regard. This Court finds it
appropriate to fix the following norms/guidelines as a
temporary measure:
AIRONLINE 2019 KER 992.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
i) petitioner/s seeking for appointment of Guardian to a
person lying in comatose state shall disclose the particulars
of the property, both movable and immovable, owned and
possessed by the patient lying in comatose state.
ii) The condition of the person lying in comatose state
shall be got ascertained by causing him to be examined by a
duly constituted Medical Board, of whom one shall
definitely be a qualified Neurologist.
iii) A simultaneous visit of the person lying in comatose
state, at his residence, shall be caused to be made through
the Revenue authorities, not below the rank of a Tahsildar
and a report shall be procured as to all the relevant facts and
figures, including the particulars of the close relatives, their
financial conditions and such other aspects.
iv) The person seeking appointment as Guardian of a
person lying in comatose state shall be a close relative
(spouse or children) and all the persons to be classified as
legal heirs in the due course shall be in the party array. In
the absence of the suitable close relative, a public official
such as 'Social Welfare officer' can be sought to be
appointed as a Guardian to the person lying in 'comatose
state'.
v) The person applying for appointment as Guardian
shall be one who is legally competent to be appointed as a
Guardian
vi) The appointment of a Guardian as above shall only be
in respect of the specific properties and bank accounts/such
other properties of the person lying in comatose state; to be
indicated in the order appointing the Guardian and the
Guardian so appointed shall act always in the best interest
of the person lying in 'comatose state'.
vii) The person appointed as Guardian shall file
periodical reports in every six months before the Registrar
General of this Court, which shall contain the particulars of
all transactions taken by the Guardian in respect of the
person and property of the patient in comatose state; besides
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
showing the utilization of the funds received and spent by
him/her.
viii) The Registrar General shall cause to maintain a
separate Register with regard to appointment of Guardian
to persons lying in 'comatose state' and adequate provision
to keep the Reports filed by the Guardian appointed by this
Court.
ix) It is open for this Court to appoint a person as
Guardian to the person lying in comatose state, either
temporarily or for a specified period or permanently, as
found to be appropriate.
x) If there is any misuse of power
or misappropriation of funds or non-extension of requisite
care and protection or support with regard to the treatment
and other requirements of the person lying in comatose
state, it is open to bring up the matter for further
consideration of this Court to re-open and revoke the power,
to take appropriate action against the person concerned, who
was appointed as the Guardian and also to appoint another
person/public authority/Social Welfare Officer (whose
official status is equal to the post of District Probation
Officer) as the Guardian.
xi) It shall be for the Guardian appointed by the Court to
meet the obligations/duties similar to those as described
under Section 15 of the National Trust Act and to maintain
and submit the accounts similar to those contained in
Section 16.
xii) The Guardian so appointed shall bring the
appointment to the notice of the Social Welfare Officer
having jurisdiction in the place of residence, along with a
copy of the verdict appointing him as Guardian, enabling
the Social Welfare Officer of the area to visit the person
lying in 'comatose state' at random and to submit a report,
if so necessitated, calling for further action/ interference of
this Court .
xiii) The transactions in respect of the property of the
person lying in 'comatose state', by the Guardian, shall be
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
strictly in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. If
the Guardian appointed is found to be abusing the power or
neglects or acts contrary to the best interest of the person
lying in 'comatose state', any relative or next friend may
apply to this Court for removal of such Guardian.
xiv) The Guardian appointed shall seek and obtain
specific permission from this Court, if he/she intends to
transfer the person lying in comatose state from the
jurisdiction of this Court to another State or Country,
whether it be for availing better treatment or otherwise."
24. In Vandana Tyagi v. Government of National Capital Territory of
Delhi5, Delhi High Court in this case relied and reiterated the guidelines
laid down by Kerala High Court in the case of Shobha Gopalakrishnan
(supra), on how to deal with cases regarding the appointment of a legal
guardian for comatose persons. These guidelines were issued by the
Division Bench of Kerala High Court and followed by the Delhi High
Court 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'. The Court also held that only the spouse or children
can be appointed as a legal guardian of a person in coma and they will
have to disclose the details of all tangible and intangible assets of the
patient.
25. Then again, in Rajni Hariom Sharma (supra), the Bombay High Court
affirmed the ratio decidendi laid down in the aforementioned two cases
and invoked the principle of ex debito justitiae. The Court, while
considering the submissions advanced by the appellants, noted that the
AIRONLINE 2020 DEL 5.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
husband is in a comatose state and thereby rendered incapable of
exercising his mental faculties, engaging in communication, or
executing requisite documents. In view of these circumstances, it was
contended that the appointment of a guardian is imperative to protect
the business and proprietary interests of the patient and to ensure the
welfare of the dependent family members. The relevant paragraphs of
the judgment are extracted hereinbelow:
"38. From the above, it is clearly deducible that when the
High Court exercises jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, it does so to further the cause of
justice. To provide justice or discharge ex debito justiciae is
the raison d'etre of the courts. The Latin expression ex
debito justitiae literally means a debt of justice; on account
of justice; a claim, the refusal of which would involve an
injustice, and therefore, one which justice owes it to the
claimant to recognize and allow. The doctrine of ex debito
justiciae is well established and requires no further
elaboration. In addition to Article 226 of the Constitution,
such power of the High Court is traceable to section 151 of
the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
......
41. Thus, having regard to the discussions made above, we
are of the view that reliefs sought for by the petitioner are
reasonable and may be granted considering the peculiar
facts and circumstances of the case. However, to ensure that
order of this Court is followed in letter and spirit and there
is no breach thereof, it is also essential that there should be
some kind of monitoring of the functioning of the petitioner
as guardian albeit for a limited duration to ensure that
guardianship is being used for the benefit of the person who
is in a vegetative state. Such monitoring may be carried out
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
through the forum of Maharashtra State Legal Services
Authority constituted under the Legal Services Authorities
Act, 1987"
26. Therefore, recognizing the wife as the guardian of her husband in a
comatose or vegetative condition is not only consistent with statutory
principles and constitutional values, but also resonates deeply with
cultural ethos and time-honoured traditions that venerate the marital
bond as one of unity, duty, and mutual guardianship.
27. It is also worth emphasizing that in an era of evolving jurisprudence on
personal liberty, bodily autonomy, and dignity, the law must not
operate in a vacuum when faced with emerging social realities. With
rapid medical advancements enabling prolonged survival even in
vegetative states, the judiciary must proactively fill legislative voids by
creating pragmatic frameworks that safeguard incapacitated
individuals without undermining their human dignity. Where an
individual is rendered silent by medical misfortune, the voice of the law
must resonate through the person most intimately aware of his needs
and values: his spouse. Any interpretation that obstructs her from
assuming this role would not only be antithetical to compassion but
would also amount to judicial abdication in the face of a moral and
constitutional imperative.
IV. CONCLUSION:
28. In light of the foregoing analysis, this Court is of the considered view
that the Petitioner is entitled to be appointed as the legal guardian and
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
representative of her husband, who is in a persistent vegetative state
and incapable of managing his affairs.
29. Smt. Epari Sushma is hereby appointed as the legal guardian and
representative of Mr. Suresh Kumar Epari, with full authority to
manage all his personal, financial, legal, medical, and business matters,
including compliance with statutory obligations.
30. All relevant authorities, banks, and regulatory bodies are directed to
recognize the Petitioner's authority for all purposes. The Petitioner shall
maintain accurate records of all transactions and actions taken on behalf
of Mr. Epari and shall submit a detailed report to any regulatory
authority as and when they demand for compliance.
31. The present Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
32. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
( Dr. S.K. Panigrahi )
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 9th May, 2025
