Bench: Justice Sachin Datta
Case No.: W.P.(C) 16793/2025
Case Title: Professor Alka Acharya v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Date of Judgment: 31.12.2025
In a significant ruling addressing the continuing legal vacuum surrounding guardianship of persons in a comatose or vegetative state, the Delhi High Court appointed a wife as the legal guardian of her husband, who was rendered incapacitated following a severe intracranial haemorrhage.
Background
The petitioner, Professor Alka Acharya, approached the Court seeking appointment as the legal guardian of her husband, Mr. Salam Khan, who has been in a persistent vegetative state since February 2025. Following emergency neurosurgery and prolonged hospitalization, Mr. Khan remained unconscious, requiring continuous medical support including tracheostomy and assisted feeding.
With no statutory mechanism available for appointing a guardian in such situations, the petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under the doctrine of parens patriae to manage her husband’s medical care and financial affairs.
Medical and Administrative Findings
Pursuant to the Court’s directions:
A Medical Board from Govind Ballabh Pant Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research (GIPMER) examined Mr. Khan and confirmed:
- Persistent vegetative state
- 100% disability
- Inability to take any decisions or perform daily activities
The Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) conducted a detailed inquiry and verified:
- The marital relationship and legal heirship
- Absence of any dispute or conflict of interest
- Financial stability and proper caregiving by the petitioner
- Authenticity of disclosed movable and immovable assets
Importantly, the couple’s children also gave their no-objection to the appointment.
Key Legal Issue
The case once again highlighted a critical gap in Indian law: there is no clear statutory framework governing appointment of guardians for individuals in a comatose or vegetative state.
The Court relied on its earlier precedent in N.A. v. GNCTD and other High Court rulings, which recognize that:
- Neither the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 nor the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 adequately address such situations
- Constitutional Courts retain inherent powers under Article 226 to step in and protect such individuals
- The doctrine of parens patriae empowers courts to act in the best interests and welfare of incapacitated persons
Court’s Observations
The Court reiterated that:
- Persons in vegetative states fall outside conventional statutory categories such as “persons with disabilities” or “persons with mental illness” for the purpose of guardianship frameworks
- This creates a “clear statutory vacuum”, necessitating judicial intervention
- Courts must adopt a case-by-case approach, guided by medical evidence, family structure, and absence of conflict
Directions Issued
Allowing the petition, the Court:
- Appointed Professor Alka Acharya as the legal guardian of her husband
- Permitted her to manage and deal with both movable and immovable assets of Mr. Khan to meet his medical and living expenses
- Granted her authority over: Medical decisions and caregiving; Financial management and daily expenditures; Operation of bank accounts, investments, and insurance
Significance
This judgment reinforces an evolving but crucial line of jurisprudence where High Courts step in to fill legislative gaps affecting some of the most vulnerable individuals. Key takeaways include:
- Recognition of legal vacuum: Existing disability and mental health laws do not cover guardianship for comatose persons
- Expanded role of constitutional courts: Courts continue to invoke parens patriae jurisdiction to ensure protection and dignity
- Preference for close relatives: Spouses and immediate family members are ordinarily preferred as guardians
- Need for legislative reform: The case underscores the urgent need for a structured statutory framework governing such situations
Comment
While the judgment provides immediate relief and practical clarity in individual cases, it also highlights a systemic issue. Despite progressive legislation like the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, certain categories of persons—especially those in prolonged unconscious states—remain outside formal legal protection mechanisms.
Until Parliament addresses this gap, courts will continue to play a vital, albeit ad hoc, role in safeguarding the rights, dignity, and welfare of such individuals.
Read the Judgement (PDF 599 KB)