ORDER

The instant case involves a desperate family, who are short of financial means are seeking for appointment of a guardian in respect of his assets for a coma patient, who requires constant medical treatment which involves huge costs.

2. (i) The petitioners are the wife and children of a coma patient, named, Dr.K.Ramasubramanian, who is a Doctorate in Environmental Science. According to the petitioners, he is the sole bread winner, but unfortunately, he suffered cardiac arrest on 25.08.2019 and thereafter, his condition was categorised as a Hypoxic Ischemic Encephalopathy. According to the petitioners, Dr.K.Ramasubramanian is now in a vegetative state and unable to carry on his regular activities like a normal person. It is the case of the petitioners that Dr.K.Ramasubramanian, the Coma patient owns several properties and bank accounts with sufficient funds for his medical expenses and also to pay for his family's needs. But, however, according to the petitioners, the Banks, in which, Dr.K.Ramasubramanian is having bank accounts, are refusing to allow the petitioners to operate his accounts on his behalf.

(ii) The petitioners have submitted an application on 17.06.2020 to the respondents 2 and 3 for appointing the first petitioner as guardian under Section 14 of the National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerbral Palsy Mentally Retarded and Multiple Disability Act, 1999, read with Rule 16(1) of the National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerbral Palsy Mentally Retarded and Multiple Disability Rules, 1999. According to the petitioners, despite the said application, there was no response from the respondents 2 and 3. According to the petitioners, there is no provision under any Legislation for appointment of a guardian for a person in Coma. Hence, according to them, they have no other alternative except to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for an extraordinary relief to declare the first petitioner, who is the wife of Dr.K.Ramasubramanian as his guardian. It is also stated in the affidavit filed in support of this Writ Petition that the respondents 2 and 3 also do not have any objection for appointing the first petitioner as guardian for Dr.K.Ramasubramanian.

(iii) In the affidavit filed in support of this Writ Petition, the petitioners have also referred to various Legislations including (1) Mental Health Act, 1987, Mental Health Care Act, 2017, Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Field Participation) Act, 1995, National Trust for the Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999 and would submit that none of the statutes enables any person to be appointed as a guardian in respect of the properties belonging to a coma patient. In such circumstances, this Writ Petition has been filed for a declaration to declare the first petitioner as a guardian of the movables and immovables assets and estate of Dr.K.Ramasubramanian, the Coma patient, who is presently in a vegetative state of mind.

3. Heard Mr.Ramesh Srinivasan, for Mr.A.Thiyagarajan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.V.Shanmugasundar, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners drew the attention of this Court to various judgments passed by different High Courts in identical matters. He first drew the attention of this Court to a judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Vandana Tyagi and another -vs- Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi and Others, reported in 2020 SCC Online Del 32 and in particular, he referred to paragraph 61, which reads as follows:-

"61. Insofar as the RPWD Act is concerned, it was enacted with the view to give effect to the United Nations Conventions on the rights of persons with disabilities and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The United Nations General Assembly adopted the aforementioned conv