SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 17493

Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, J
Singavaram Nagamma – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No.8729 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: D.Vigneshwar Reddy
For the Respondents: GP FOR MEDICAL AND HEALTH

The High Court may exercise its parens patriae jurisdiction under Article 226 to appoint a legal guardian for a comatose person to manage their assets for medical expenses, in the absence of specific statutory provisions, provided that the guardian's actions are monitored and directed toward the patient's best interests.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Parens Patriae jurisdiction - Appointment of legal guardian for person in vegetative or comatose state - In the absence of specific statutory provisions under existing laws for such appointment to manage the finances and medical requirements of a comatose person, the High Court exercises its extraordinary jurisdiction to fill the legislative vacuum - Court identifies the spouse as the most natural and suitable guardian due to inherent moral and legal proximity. (Paras 6, 9, 10, 11)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, sought to be appointed as the legal guardian of her husband who is in a vegetative/comatose state, following a medical condition. The plea aimed to authorize the operation of the patient's bank account to cover escalating medical costs, as no specific law addresses guardianship for those in a permanent vegetative state.

Findings of Court:
The court held that while existing legislation like the Mental Healthcare Act and Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act deal with certain mental conditions, they do not comprehensively cover those in a comatose state; therefore, the court invokes its inherent parens patriae jurisdiction to grant guardianship, subject to specific periodic accountability measures.

Issues: Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 226 to appoint a guardian for a person in a vegetative state for the purpose of managing financial assets for medical care.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of an express statutory mechanism, the High Court is empowered to act as the ultimate custodian of the rights of the incapacitated, applying the principle of 'best interest' and 'wills and preferences' to appoint a spouse as a legal guardian under strictly monitored and transparent operational guidelines.

Result: Petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks invocation of parens patriae jurisdiction for financial access due to incapacitation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. petitioners rely on judicial precedents while respondents contest maintainability under article 226. (Para 4 , 5)
3. court establishes guardianship mechanism via parens patriae to address legislative silence regarding comatose patients. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. appointment of spouse as guardian with strict accountability and reporting mandates. (Para 11 , 12)

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? Yes/No

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No

3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:-

“to issue a writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus, invoking the parens patriae jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court, appoint petitioner No.3 as the legal guardian of my father, Sri Singavaram Subhan Singh, who is presently in a vegetative/comatose state, for the limited purpose of operating and withdrawing amounts from his Axis Bank Account bearing No. 913010036494989, for meeting his medical expenses, and to pass such other order or orders.”

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 i.e., Mr.Singavaram Subhan Singh is aged about 65 years, is diagnosed with CVA-left CG Hematoma, Status Post Left FTP Decompressive Craniectomy and underwent a surgery at Care Hospital HI-Tech city. After completion of surgery his medical condition has not improved and he continued to remain in vegetative state, requiring tracheostomy tube for breathing and Ryle tube for feeding. For medical treatment as was done till date and for further continuation of medical treatment, since he has been in vegetative state, requires so much of funds. Further, Mr.Singavaram Subhan Singh, who is in vegetative state, vested with movable and immovable properties stands in his name and there is credit/deposit amount of Rs.14,38,015/- in his bank account, which is lying with respondent No.2. He further submits that to meet all medical expenses and day to day expenses is become so difficult for the petitioners without touching the funds lying at bank account of their father. Therefore, to withdraw the funds from his account, among the petitioners one of them has to be declared as guardian to operate the bank account lying with the respondent No.2 and to deal with the properties of Mr.Singavaram Subhan Singh. He further submits that there is no other known procedure can be adopted except invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Admittedly there is no other procedure either under the civil law remedies or under any special law remedies were provided under any enactment. For which, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment rendered by the High Court of Delhi in Professor Alka Acharya vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.,1W.P.(C) 16793 of 2025 dated 31.12.2025

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that in view of the judgment rendered by the High Court of Delhi as stated supra, among the petitioners herein, either one of them is entitled to be declared as guardian of Mr.Singavaram Subhan Singh, who is in vegetative state.

5. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Medical and Health submits that the present Writ Petition is not maintainable under extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, since the petitioners are seeking for appointment of guardianship regarding another individual who is none other than the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top