Satula Devi vs Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Del) 1435

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Satula Devi - Appellant
Versus
Govt.Of NCT Of Delhi & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Writ Petition No. 1271 of 2020
Decided On : 06-01-2022

Advocates appeared:
Vikas Singh, Advocate, Varun Singh, Advocate, Deepeika Kalia, Advocate, Kapish Seth, Advocate, Mrityunjay Singh, Advocate, Alankrit Dwivedi, Advocate, Akshay Dev, Advocate, Abhijeet Pandey, Advocate, Ytharth Kumar, Advocate, Anupam Srivastava, Advocate, Vasuh Misra, Advocate, K.K. Rai, Advocate, Anshul Rai, Advocate, S.K. Pandey, Advocate, Chandrashekhar AC, Advocate, Awanish Kumar, Advocate, Sreoshi Chatterjee, Advocate, Mahesh Jethmalani, Advocate, Ravi Sharma, Advocate, Anjani Kumar Rai, Advocate, Gunjan Mangla, Advocate, Madhullika Rai Sharma, Advocate, Dr. Abhishek Singhvi, Advocate, B. Shravanth Shanker, Advocate, Sandeep Sethi, Advocate, D. Abhinav Rao, Advocate, Umesh Sharma, Advocate, Sanjeev Sagar, Advocate, Nazia Parveen, Advocate

Headnote:
Guardianship - Rights of Persons with Disabilities act, 2016, Mental Healthcare act, 2017 - 14(1) proviso of the RPWD-2016, total support to be provided considering Mr.DMP's inability to take any decisions for his own welfare; MHa-2017, nominated representative to be appointed for taking decisions for medical care and treatment of Mr. DMP. Guardianship Committee constituted for acting as a nominated representative committee under the MHa-2017 and for providing total support under the RPWD-2016. Sole Guardian appointed after Mr. DMP's demise to safeguard his assets and estate.
Fact of the Case:

The petition relates to guardianship sought for a senior citizen diagnosed with 'fronto-temporal dementia'. A detailed mechanism was put in place for taking care of the senior citizen and his financial affairs. After the senior citizen's demise, an application was filed seeking directions concerning the continuance of the Supervising Guardian's mandate and compliance of court orders.
Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the family members were unable to come together to perform the last rites of the deceased senior citizen in a dignified manner. The Court disbanded the Guardianship Committee and appointed a Sole Guardian to safeguard the deceased's assets and estate. The Court also directed the SDMC to rectify the death certificate to reflect the deceased's wife's name correctly.
Issues: Disputes over the deceased's assets, alleged misuse of assets by family members, and conduct of last rites.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court appointed a Sole Guardian to safeguard the deceased's assets and estate after finding that the family members were unable to come together to perform the last rites of the deceased senior citizen in a dignified manner.
Final Decision: The Court disbanded the Guardianship Committee and appointed a Sole Guardian to safeguard the deceased's assets and estate. The Court also directed the SDMC to rectify the death certificate to reflect the deceased's wife's name correctly.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. - This hearing has been done through video conferencing.

CM aPPL.171/2022 in W.P.(C) 9643/2018

2. This petition relates to guardianship which was sought in respect of a senior citizen who is referred to, since inception, as Mr. DMP, who was a Member of Parliament and was diagnosed with `fronto-temporal dementia'. The guardianship sought by the Petitioner/Mrs. Satula Devi (hereinafter 'Mrs. SD') - i.e., Mr. DMP's wife, was vehemently contested by other family members of Mr. DMP and the petition was heard by this Court from time to time. Mrs. SD was supported by her two sons - Respondent No. 4/Mr. Rajiv Sharma (hereinafter 'Mr. RS'), Respondent No.3/Mr. Ranjit Sharma (hereinafter 'Mr. RJS') and their respective families. However, Respondent No.5/Ms. Uma Devi (hereinafter 'Ms. UD'), who was Mr. DMP's companion, Intervener/Mr. Umesh Sharma (hereinafter 'Mr. US')- Mr. DMP's brother, and Respondent No.6/Mrs. Kanchana Rai (hereinafter 'Mrs. KR'), - Mr. DMP's daughter-in-law whose husband was the deceased third son of Mr. DMP, and her sons were opposing the present writ petition.

3. In the writ petition, the legal position emerging from the two statutes i.e., The Rights of Persons with Disabilities act, 2016 (RPWD-2016) and The Mental Healthcare act, 2017 (MHa-2017) was analysed along with the records of the multiple disputes between the parties including a habeas corpus petition which was heard before a Ld. Division Bench of this Court.

Mr. DMP owned a large quantum of moveable and immoveable assets including fixed deposits, investments, immoveable property, shares in leading companies etc., running into more than Rs. 3000 crores. The exact value of assets was not yet fully determined.

4. Vide judgment dated 29th October, 2021, a detailed mechanism was put in place by this Court, for taking care of Mr. DMP and his financial affairs. as per the said judgement, a Guardianship Committee along with a Supervising Guardian i.e., Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw (Retd.), was appointed to take decisions unanimously in respect of all affairs of Mr. DMP. The directions issued were in the following terms:

'271. In the above legal and factual background, this Court holds that the present case is one which reveals exceptional circumstances for exercise of parens patriae jurisdiction as also jurisdiction under the RPWD-2016 and MHa-2017. Under Section 14(1) proviso of the RPWD-2016, total support would have to be provided considering that Mr.DMP is unable to take any decisions for his own welfare whatsoever. Under the MHa-2017, nominated representative has to also be appointed for taking decisions for medical care and treatment of Mr. DMP.

272. Moreover, the nominated representative or the guardian need not always be a single individual. Especially in the present case, the movable and immovable assets and financial affairs of Mr. DMP are vast; it would be physically impossible for any particular individual to be able to exercise control and judgment, or to take proper decisions in respect of Mr. DMP's healthcare. accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that a Guardianship Committee would deserve to be appointed for the purpose of taking care of Mr. DMP and his financial affairs. In the above circumstances, the following directions are issued:

a) a Guardianship Committee of Mrs. SD, Mr. RS and Mr. US, i.e. the wife, son and brother, related by blood and marriage (as given in the order of precedence under both the MHa-2017 and RPWD-2016), is constituted for the purposes for acting both as a nominated representative committee under the MHa-2017 and for providing total support under the RPWD-2016. The said Committee shall take unanimous decisions in respect of all affairs of Mr. DMP including medical treatment, healthcare decisions qua daily living, financial affairs dealing with movable and immovable assets, decisions qua the shareholding of Mr. DMP etc. The said Guardianship Committee shall consult with Mr. DMP to the extent possib