$~46 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5959/2024 Date of Decision: 25.02.2026 IN THE MATTER OF:

BHAVNA GULATI & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr Arjeet Gaur, Advocate.

versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr Shashi Pratap Singh with Ms Shagun Sabharwal, Ms Anamika Tyagi & Ms Laqshyaa Saluja, Advocates for GNCTD.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

JUDGEMENT

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

The Court vide order dated 29.04.2024 has succinctly captured the controversy involved in the instant writ petition. Paragraph nos. 1 to 6 of the said order is extracted as under:

“1. The Petitioners have approached this Court with the following prayers:-

“Issue a writ of mandamus or any other similar writ order or direction to the respondents commanding them to appoint Petitioner No. I as a guardian of person and property of Petitioner no.2 in the light of the facts and circumstances of this case;

OR In the alternate, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other similar writ, order or direction commanding the Respondent no.2 to consider the application for the appointment of Petitioner No. I as a guardian of Petitioner No.2 without any discrimination/disqualification based on nationality of petitioner no. 1; and Pass any other further order which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also be passed in favour of the Petitioners in the interest of justice.”

2. It is stated that the Petitioner No.1 is the sister of Petitioner No.2. It is stated that the parents of Petitioner No.2 have passed away.

3. It is stated that Petitioner No.2 has been diagnosed with Cerebral Palsy with Dolico Cephaly with seizures with Mental Retardation and suffers 100% Locomotor Disability from birth.

4. It is stated that Petitioner No.2 is not in any position to take care of himself. It is stated that Petitioners have approached the Trial Court and the Trial Court refused to entertain the application. The Petitioner also approached the District Magistrate to grant any relief on the ground that Petitioner No.1 is not an Indian national. Therefore, the Petitioner approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition.

5. Mr. Udit Malik, learned ASC for GNCTD, raises preliminary objection stating that the matter stands fully covered by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sunil Poddar v. The National Trust for Welfare of Person with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities and Anr., 2023 SCC OnLine Del

832.

6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks to distinguish the same by stating that in the said case both the child and the parent were foreign nationals whereas in this case Petitioner No.2 is an Indian national.”

2. A plain reading of the decision in the case of Sunil Podar v. National Trust For The Welfare Of Person With Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities and Anr, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 832., would clearly indicate that there is an embargo for a foreign national to seek for appointment of a guardian under Rule 17 sub-Rule 3(a) of the Rules of National Trust Rules, 2000. Paragraph 26 of the said decision is extracted as under:

“26. The Court also finds merit in the submissions addressed by the learned ASG and Mr. Kumar when they contended that the requirement of a guardian being a citizen of India is designed to subserve a larger societal and public purpose. As is manifest from a conjoint reading of Sections 15, 16 and 17 of the Act, the affairs and the well-being of a person with disability is subject to periodical monitoring by the Local Level Committee and other authorities charged with discharging that obligation. In terms of Section 16(1), a person appointed as a guardian is to deliver an inventory of all immovable property belonging to a person with disability within six months from the date of his appointment. The guardian, additionally and in terms of Section 16(2), is further obliged to furnish ret