Andhra Pradesh High Court: In a writ petition concerning appointment of a guardian for a person in a comatose state, seeking invocation of the court’s parens patriae jurisdiction in the absence of any statutory mechanism governing such situations, the Single Judge Bench of Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, J., held that where an individual was incapable of managing his affairs due to a vegetative condition, the spouse would be the most appropriate person to act as guardian. Invoking the ancient Indian philosophical concept of “Ardhangini”, the Court appointed the petitioner-wife as the legal guardian for the limited purpose of operating the bank account of her husband to meet his medical expenses, subject to safeguards and periodic judicial oversight.
Also Read: Uttaranchal HC appoints wife as her husband’s guardian who is in a comatose state
Background
The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus by invoking the parens patriae jurisdiction of the High Court to appoint Petitioner 3 as the legal guardian of Mr S., husband of Petitioner 1 and father of Petitioners 2 and 3, who was in a vegetative/comatose state. The relief was sought for the limited purpose of operating his bank account and withdrawing funds to meet medical expenses.
The petitioners submitted that Mr S., aged about 65 years, was diagnosed with CVA-left CG hematoma and had undergone decompressive craniectomy. Post-surgery, he remained in a vegetative state, dependent on tracheostomy and Ryle tube support, requiring continuous and expensive medical care. It was stated that he possessed movable and immovable assets, including approximately Rs 14.38 lakhs in his bank account, which the petitioners were unable to access. Due to mounting medical and daily expenses, they sought appointment of one among them as guardian to manage his financial affairs.
The petitioners placed reliance on Alka Acharya v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine Del 9690 and contended that no statutory remedy existed for such appointment and that the writ jurisdiction was the only recourse.
The respondents opposed the petition, contending that the relief sought was civil in nature and that the petitioners ought to approach a competent civil court. It was thus argued that the writ petition was not maintainable.
Analysis and Decision
Relying on the cases of Epari Sushma v. State of Odisha, 2025 SCC OnLine Ori 5377, Rajni Hariom Sharma v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 880 and S. Sasikala v. State of T.N., 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 8566, the Court held that the facts of the present case warranted exercise of parens patriae jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It noted the absence of any specific statutory framework governing appointment of a guardian for a person in a comatose state. In such circumstances, the Court considered it appropriate to frame interim norms and guidelines, drawing support from judicial precedents including Shobha Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala, 2019 SCC OnLine Ker 739.
The Court further observed that where an individual was in a complete vegetative or comatose state and incapable of making decisions or acting independently, the spouse would be the most appropriate person to act as guardian. This conclusion was reinforced by the Indian philosophical concept of “Ardhangini”, recognising the wife as an equal and integral partner.
On this reasoning, the Court held that the petitioners were justified in invoking writ jurisdiction for appointment of a guardian for Mr S.
Notably, though the relief was originally sought for Petitioner 3, the Court found Petitioner 1/wife to be the most appropriate guardian and appointed her accordingly for the limited purpose of operating his bank account. The Court directed that periodic account statements be preserved and produced before the Registrar (Judicial) once every three months for a period of one year or until any significant medical event, whichever occurred earlier. The Registry was further directed to forward a copy of the judgment to the Secretary, Department of Justice, Government of Andhra Pradesh, for information and necessary action.
[Singavaram Nagamma v. State of A.P., W.P. No. 8729 of 2026, decided on 6-4-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: D. Vigneshwar Reddy, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Government Pleader