$~48

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 270/2025

SANGRAM SINGH & ANR.

.....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Siddharth Arora and Mr. Karan

Bhatia, Advocates.

versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SECRETARY & ORS.

.....Respondent

Through: Advocates Mr. Girish Kaul, Mr. K. G.

Gopalakrishnan, Mr. Abhiram Venugopal, Miss Aishwarya, Advs.

for R-1.

Mr. Manish Dhankani, Mr Nitesh

Grover, Advs. for R-2&3.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

O R D E R

% 14.01.2026

1. The petition is for appointment of petitioner no. 1 as the guardian of

the estate of petitioner no. 2.

2. As per the petitioners, petitioner no. 2 has been rendered medically incapacitated due to severe brain haemorrhage, and he is unable to perform basic daily activities without external assistance. The estate of petitioner no. 2 is stated to be the subject of certain status-quo orders passed by this Court in separate proceedings. It is urged that the income generated from these properties are necessary for attending to petitioner no. 2’s medical needs and

that owing to the aforesaid orders, the same cannot be utilized.

3. Section 14 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (Act of 2016) provides for appointment of guardians for persons with disabilities

who had been provided adequate and appropriate support but are unable to take legally binding decisions. The said provision is extracted below, for reference:

“14. Provision for guardianship.—(1)Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, on and from the date of commencement of this Act, where a district court or any designated authority, as notified by the State Government, finds that a person with disability, who had been provided adequate and appropriate support but is unable to take legally binding decisions, may be provided further support of a limited guardian to take legally binding decisions on his behalf in consultation with such person, in such manner, as may be prescribed by the State Government:

Provided that the District Court or the designated authority, as the case may be, may grant total support to the person with disability requiring such support or where the limited guardianship is to be granted repeatedly, in which case, the decision regarding the support to be provided shall be reviewed by the Court or the designated authority, as the case may be, to determine the nature and manner of support to be provided.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, “limited guardianship” means a system of joint decision which operates on mutual understanding and trust between the guardian and the person with disability, which shall be limited to a specific period and for specific decision and situation and shall operate in accordance to the will of the person with disability.

(2) On and from the date of commencement of this Act, every guardian appointed under any provision of any other law for the time being in force, for a person with disability shall be deemed to function as a limited guardian.

(3) Any person with disability aggrieved by the decision of the designated authority appointing a legal guardian may prefer an appeal to such appellate authority, as may be notified by the State Government for the purpose.”

4. A perusal of the same indicates that the power to appoint a guardian thereunder is conferred on District Courts or the designated authorities.

5. The petitioner has invoked the parens patriae jurisdiction of this Court in spite of the fact that the power for appointment of guardians under the Act of 2016 has explicitly been conferred on District Courts and designated authorities.

6. The petitioner has also invoked the provision under Section 14 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 (Act of 2017). It provides for appointment of nominated representatives for persons with mental illness. The said provision is extracted below, for reference:

“14. Appointment and revocation of nominated representative.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (c) of sub-