HC appoints daughters as guardians of bedridden man; says court cannot remain mute spectator
Mumbai, The Bombay High Court has appointed two daughters as guardians of their 73-year-old bedridden father, who suffered a brain injury during a cardiac arrest, noting that he was unable to take care of himself or his property.
A bench of Justice Abhay Ahuja, in its order of May 8, a copy of which was made available on Wednesday, said courts cannot remain a mute spectator to such situations.
The high court, while appointing the two daughters as guardians of their father, noted that the man was suffering from mental illness and was a 'person in a state of lunacy who is incapable of taking care of himself or managing his property'.
'The higher courts of our country exercise the 'parens patriae' jurisdiction as they cannot be mute spectators to a real life situation of the nature before this Court,' Justice Ahuja said.
As per the plea, the senior citizen suffered a brain injury in 2024, resulting in deprivation of oxygen and blood supply, during a cardiac arrest. As a consequence, he has been in a semi-conscious and incapacitated state and is bedridden till date.
The petition sought HC to appoint the two daughters as guardians of their father, as he is incapable of communication and is not even able to take care of his basic personal needs.
The petition was initially filed under the Guardian and Wards Act, by which a guardian can be appointed for the welfare of a minor alone.
The plea was later amended and sought for the daughters to be appointed as guardians of the senior citizen under Clause XVII of the Letters Patent.
Under Clause XVII of the Letters Patent, the high court has the power and authority with regard to the person and estate of 'infants, idiots and lunatics'.
A Letters Patent is a specific law under which an HC derives its subordinate piece of legislation and is a special law which prevails over the general law.
The high court said under the Mental Healthcare Act, mental illness means a substantial disorder of thinking, orientation that grossly impairs judgment and the ability to meet with the ordinary demands of life.
The court in its order noted that the man was unable to understand or take informed decisions, and that he requires constant care and attention.
The bench noted that this was definitely not a case of mental retardation. 'However, it can be said that this is a case of mental illness although the same may have arisen as a result of a cardiac arrest,' HC said.
'Lunacy refers to unsoundness of mind sufficient to incapacitate a person from civil transactions. It can also refer to a mental disorder as described in the definition of mental illness,' Justice Ahuja said.
Such mental illness where the person is incapable of taking care of himself or managing his assets, can be said to be a 'state of lunacy' and hence under the Letters Patent, the high court would have authority and jurisdiction with respect to the person and the estate of such a 'lunatic', HC said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
12 hours ago
- The Hindu
Karnataka to establish care centres for mentally ill in four districts
The Karnataka government has approved the establishment of care centres for mentally challenged persons in the districts of Chitradurga, Yadgir, Kolar, and Bidar, with a grant of ₹6 crore. The centres will be established in collaboration with NGO Aaladamara Foundation, said an order issued by the Health Department on Friday. The Karnataka State Budget for 2025 had said that care centres for mentally ill persons would be established at district-level hospitals in collaboration with NGOs. The order issued on Friday stated that similar centres will be established in the remaining 27 districts at district-level hospitals in collaboration with NGOs. 'Due to challenges in accessing nearby mental health services, thousands of mentally ill persons leave their homes and become homeless every year. Identifying mentally ill persons among the homeless and bringing them to a safe place is a key function of the system,' stated the order. The order cited the Mental Health Care Act, 2017, which says that it is essential to initiate community-based, human rights-friendly care, support, assessment, and treatment for mentally ill individuals.
Time of India
2 days ago
- Time of India
Kerala HC sets aside state govt order stipulating internship fee for foreign medical graduates
Kochi: High court has set aside the state govt's order stipulating an internship fee for foreign medical graduates (FMGs). The bench of Justice N Nagaresh further observed that, as the National Medical Commission (NMC) Act mandates stipend payment to medical interns for their service, the state is not justified in levying an internship fee from medical graduates. The Court was considering a batch of petitions filed by FMGs challenging the GO dated April 3, 2025, issued by the health department additional secretary, which directed them to pay Rs 5,000 per month as an internship fee for the Compulsory Rotating Medical Internship (CRMI). The petitioners, who secured medical degrees from institutions outside India, contended that the NMC, which has the power under the Act to make policy regarding the internship, provides no option for the state to levy any fee for CRMI and had already directed that no such fee should be charged. The state opposed the arguments and submitted that the NMC cannot restrain state govts from levying an internship fee on Indian or foreign medical graduates. In 2020, the state had fixed the internship fee at Rs 10,000 per month for FMGs, and, in view of directions from a HC division bench in a previous petition, the govt had refixed the fee at Rs 5,000 per month. Meanwhile, the NMC clarified that it had taken a policy decision directing that no internship fee shall be collected from students undergoing CRMI. Accordingly, HC set aside the impugned GO mandating the internship fee for FMGs.
Time of India
2 days ago
- Time of India
High court affirms medical reimbursement as fundamental right
Chandigarh: Punjab and Haryana high court has held that the right to life includes the right to medical facilities, and the denial of medical reimbursement violates Article 21 of the Constitution. Emphasising that medical bills must be processed and reimbursed promptly, the court observed that requiring an individual to have their medical bills re-certified by the hospital or doctor, after they were already duly submitted, would constitute a grave injustice. Justice Deepinder Singh Nalwa passed these orders while allowing a petition filed by Rajesh Kaushik, seeking directions to consider and release the medical reimbursement of over Rs 2.12 lakh along with interest, which was sanctioned via order dated Jan 9, 2014. He also sought directions to quash the letters by the department asking him to re-submit the verified bills after seven years of submitting the original ones. The petitioner was an employee of PEPSU Road Transport Corporation, Nabha Road, Patiala. His wife got a knee transplant at Fortis Hospital, Mohali, on June 27, 2013. Following this, the counsel for the petitioner, Vikas Chatrath, submitted that medical bills were duly submitted by the petitioner for the purpose of medical reimbursement. This was duly sanctioned and approved by the competent authority in 2014. Even the petitioner submitted duplicate medical bills for release of medical reimbursement. "However, after almost seven years, it is not possible for the petitioner to get the medical bills certified again from the concerned doctor. Once the medical bills are sanctioned, the respondents are duty-bound to release these," Chatrath submitted. Contesting the plea, the state govt submitted that the medical bills were misplaced, and as such, the impugned letters were issued to the petitioner to get the medical bills certified again from the concerned authority/doctor. As such, the action of the department in not releasing the medical reimbursement is legal and valid, the HC was informed. The HC quashed all the letters through which the state was asked to re-submit the bills and directed the authorities to release the sanctioned and approved medical reimbursement amount of Rs 2.12 lakh to the petitioner within four weeks. "The action of the respondents in not releasing the amount of medical reimbursement to the petitioner violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution," observed the judge in its order released last week.
