Introduction:

In a deeply humane and constitutionally sensitive decision, the Delhi High Court, while exercising its extraordinary parens patriae jurisdiction, appointed a wife as the legal guardian of her husband who has been lying in a persistent vegetative and comatose state since February 2025 following a devastating intracranial haemorrhage; the petition was instituted by Professor Alka Acharya, who approached the Court seeking guardianship over her husband Mr. Salam Khan, with respect to his medical care, financial affairs, movable and immovable properties, and day-to-day decision-making, after it became evident that his medical condition had rendered him completely incapable of exercising any independent will or judgment, and Justice Sachin Datta, taking note of the marriage spanning over three decades, the existence of two adult children, the medical evidence placed on record, and the absence of any contest or adverse material, held that the welfare, dignity, and survival needs of a person in a vegetative state necessitate judicial intervention to ensure that a trusted and responsible family member is legally empowered to act on his behalf, thereby reaffirming the role of constitutional courts as protectors of those who are voiceless, incapacitated, and entirely dependent on others for their existence.

Arguments of the Petitioner:

On behalf of the petitioner-wife, it was contended that the marital relationship between Professor Alka Acharya and her husband dated back to June 1989, out of which two children were born, and that the family had been living together harmoniously, with the husband being under continuous care and supervision of his wife and children at their residence following the catastrophic medical event in February 2025; it was submitted that Mr. Salam Khan had suffered a “right ganglion-thalamic bleed,” leading to an intracranial haemorrhage which resulted in irreversible neurological damage, leaving him in a comatose and vegetative condition requiring constant medical attention, including the use of a tracheostomy tube for breathing and a Ryle tube for feeding, with no signs of cognitive recovery; the petitioner emphasized that due to this condition, her husband was entirely incapable of taking decisions relating to his treatment, finances, assets, or personal welfare, thereby creating severe practical difficulties in managing hospital care, paying medical bills, handling bank accounts, dealing with properties, and accessing social security or financial instruments standing in his name; it was argued that in the absence of formal guardianship, even routine decisions essential for preserving his life and dignity were becoming legally cumbersome, exposing the family to avoidable hardship; the petitioner thus prayed that she be appointed as the legal guardian of her husband for all purposes, including medical treatment, caretaking, daily expenditure, financial management, and dealing with movable and immovable assets, solely for his welfare and benefit, asserting that the relief sought was not adversarial in nature but rooted in compassion, responsibility, and necessity.

Stand of the Respondents and State Authorities:

The Government of NCT of Delhi, represented through its counsel, did not raise any substantive objection to the prayer made by the petitioner and placed reliance on the reports submitted by the statutory authorities and medical boards constituted for the purpose of assessing the mental and physical condition of Mr. Salam Khan; the State facilitated the verification process through the office of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, who conducted an independent inquiry into the factual assertions made by the petitioner, including the marital relationship, family structure, medical condition of the husband, and the manner in which he was being cared for, and submitted a report affirming that the statements made by the wife were correct and that no adverse or contradictory material was found on record; the Medical Board, whose opinion was also placed before the Court, unequivocally certified that Mr. Salam Khan was a post-operative case of right ganglion-thalamic bleed, that his disability stood at 100%, that he was in a persistent vegetative state, unfit to undertake any major or minor decisions, and that he required constant support, supervision, and assistance for even the most basic daily activities, thereby establishing beyond doubt that the case warranted judicial protection under the doctrine of parens patriae.

Court’s Judgment:

After carefully considering the pleadings, medical evidence, and reports submitted by the Medical Board and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the Delhi High Court held that the facts of the case clearly established a situation where the person concerned was entirely incapable of safeguarding his own interests, thereby casting a constitutional obligation on the Court to step in as parens patriae—the ultimate guardian of those who cannot protect themselves; Justice Sachin Datta observed that the medical opinion conclusively showed that Mr. Salam Khan was suffering from a 100% disability, was in a vegetative and comatose state since February 2025, and was incapable of taking any independent decisions or performing any activities of daily living, and therefore, for his welfare, survival, and dignity, the appointment of a legal guardian was not merely justified but necessary; the Court emphasized that parens patriae jurisdiction is invoked to ensure that the rights and interests of persons who are mentally or physically incapacitated are preserved, protected, and advanced, and that in such circumstances, the spouse, being the closest caregiver and most affected stakeholder, is often the most suitable person to be entrusted with guardianship; accordingly, the Court appointed Professor Alka Acharya as the legal guardian of her husband and expressly granted her the authority to take decisions relating to his medical treatment, caretaking arrangements, daily expenditures, financial matters, and the management, operation, or dealing with both movable and immovable assets belonging to him, clarifying that such powers were to be exercised solely for meeting his medical needs, daily requirements, and overall welfare; the Court further held that the wife would be at liberty to deal with her husband’s assets to ensure continuity of care and financial stability, thereby removing legal impediments that could otherwise jeopardize timely medical treatment and dignified living, and concluded that in the “aforesaid conspectus,” it stood unequivocally established that judicial intervention was warranted to protect a person rendered voiceless by medical tragedy, reinforcing the role of constitutional courts as institutions of empathy, protection, and social justice.