The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has issued a firm directive to the Union of India and the Reserve Bank of India, mandating the formulation of comprehensive guidelines to address the financial plight of families whose relatives are in a persistent comatose state. The court’s order comes in the wake of a petition filed by one Parveen Jahan, whose husband was in a coma at the time the legal challenge was initiated. Despite the unfortunate passing of the account holder during the pendency of the matter, the bench observed that the underlying issue remains a systemic failure that leaves families without access to vital household and medical finances when they are needed most.

The Division Bench, comprising Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Garima Prashad, expressed deep concern over the lack of a legal mechanism that enables immediate access to savings held by incapacitated individuals. The court emphasized that when a primary breadwinner or account holder enters a state of coma, the dependants are often left entirely remediless, unable to meet hospital expenses or essential daily costs. In its order, the High Court underscored that the government cannot remain a passive observer to this humanitarian crisis, insisting that the central authorities must draft policy frameworks that balance the security of banking operations with the urgent needs of patients' families.

In its observations, the court stated, "It is indeed a matter of concern that a person who passes in state of Coma, the dependents become absolutely remediless in a sense that they do not have necessary fund and source of finances and to not only take care of the patient by meeting the expenses of the hospital but even to manage the house holds." This ruling builds upon the High Court’s previous judgment in Uma Mittal & Others v. Union of India & Others , which had already highlighted the need for legislative action in this area. Despite those earlier observations, the court noted that progress has been insufficient, necessitating further, more aggressive judicial intervention to compel action from both the central government and the Reserve Bank of India.

The court has explicitly required both the Ministry of Finance and the regulatory body to file formal affidavits detailing proposed policies or guidelines that would facilitate access to such savings in emergencies. The bench clarified that these affidavits must reflect a serious effort to address the vacuum in existing law. The authorities have been warned that failure to present a concrete, viable solution by the next hearing will likely result in the court summoning high-ranking officials to provide an explanation in person.

Addressing the Vacuum in Legal Frameworks

The legal discourse surrounding this case highlights a significant intersection between banking regulations and the right to survival. While the Indian legal system provides for various succession laws, these are often lengthy, adversarial, and ill-suited for the immediate, daily financial demands of a family struggling to sustain a patient in a vegetative state. The High Court has directed the impleadment of the Reserve Bank of India through its Executive Director (Banking Regulation) to ensure the regulatory perspective is thoroughly addressed. This move is intended to push the central bank toward establishing a standard operating procedure for nationalized and subsidiary banks, ensuring that compassionate access to accounts can be granted under controlled, verified conditions.

The court referenced the guidelines previously laid out by the Kerala High Court in Shobha Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala , suggesting that these could serve as a model for the state government to consider while waiting for broader central policy changes. By drawing on these precedents, the Allahabad bench is signaling that it expects not just rhetoric, but an actionable, written policy that can be enforced to alleviate the distress of families across the state.

Ensuring Accountability at the State Level

In addition to the central bodies, the Uttar Pradesh state government has been placed under intense scrutiny. The court directed the Chief Secretary to provide a substantive report regarding steps taken at the state level to find a resolution. The bench was uncompromising in its instructions to the state administration, noting that inaction would not be tolerated.

"We make it clear that if the Chief Secretary does not come up with such solution in black and white, he will have to appear in person before this Court on the next date fixed," the order recorded. This threat of personal appearance marks a significant escalation in the court's effort to bypass bureaucratic delays. The bench is clearly seeking to ensure that the state government acts as an intermediary, advocating for the welfare of its citizens in the absence of a comprehensive national law.

While the court acknowledged that the specific petitioner can now pursue standard succession proceedings following the death of her husband, the larger constitutional question regarding the rights of dependants during the patient’s life remains the primary focus. The court clarified that the current proceedings are intended to foster a broader systemic shift, preventing future families from suffering the same isolation and financial paralysis.

The matter is now scheduled for further hearing on November 6, 2026. By this time, both the central government and the Reserve Bank of India are expected to have submitted affidavits outlining their position on whether legislation or executive guidelines can be enacted to protect families in these, the most difficult of circumstances. Until such guidelines are in place, the court remains the final port of call for those facing the twin burdens of medical tragedy and financial exclusion. The upcoming hearing will be a critical juncture, determining whether the current legal ambiguity will continue or whether a new regulatory path will finally be paved to protect the vulnerable.