The Madras High Court has recognized that in the absence of statutory provisions, the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution may be invoked to appoint guardians for individuals in a permanent comatose state, ensuring their welfare and enabling necessary financial interventions for medical care.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, M. Vasanthakumar and M. Pavithra, are the children of Mr. R. Manoharan and Mrs. M. Vijayalakshmi, aged 58. Mrs. Vijayalakshmi suffered a severe accident resulting in a persistent comatose condition, rendering her incapable of understanding, communicating, or executing any legal document. The petitioners seek to be appointed as her legal guardians to manage her assets and bank accounts for the sole purpose of funding her ongoing medical treatment and family expenses.
Key Facts
- Mrs. M. Vijayalakshmi has been in a comatose state since the date of her accident, with no prospect of recovery as per medical assessment.
- The family has no other source of income; the first petitioner is the sole earner and is unable to sustain medical and household expenses.
- The property in question is jointly owned by the petitioners’ parents, measuring 3404 sq.ft., of which 2270 sq.ft. is proposed to be sold.
- The petitioners’ mother holds joint bank accounts with her deceased husband, which remain inaccessible due to her incapacity.
- No legal guardian has been appointed under any existing statute, as neither the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, nor the Mental Health Act, 1987, provides for guardianship of persons in a vegetative or comatose state.
Procedural History
- Date of Accident: Not specified in judgment, but medical condition confirmed as ongoing.
- 02.02.2026: Court directed the 4th respondent (Dean, Coimbatore Medical College) to submit a medical report on Mrs. Vijayalakshmi’s condition.
- 11.02.2026: Medical report filed, confirming Mrs. Vijayalakshmi is mentally incapacitated and unable to make decisions or execute documents.
- 02.02.2026: Court also directed the 7th respondent (State Bank of India, Podanur Branch) to furnish account details, but no response was submitted.
- 29.04.2026: Writ Petition taken up for final disposal.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioners: The petitioners argued that their sole intent is to safeguard their mother’s interests by accessing her assets to meet medical bills. They emphasized their bona fides, lack of alternative resources, and the absence of any other legal mechanism to act on her behalf. They relied on prior judgments of the Madras High Court granting similar reliefs under Article 226.
For the Respondents: The Government Advocate for Respondents 4 to 6 accepted the medical report and expressed no objection to the petitioners being appointed as guardians, provided safeguards are imposed to prevent misuse of the mother’s assets. The 7th respondent (Bank) did not file any response.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought:
- A declaration appointing them as legal guardians of Mrs. M. Vijayalakshmi.
- Authority to sell a portion (2270 sq.ft.) of the jointly owned immovable property.
- Authority to operate her joint bank accounts.
- Permission to use proceeds exclusively for her medical treatment and family sustenance.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Article 226 of the Constitution of India empowers the High Court to appoint children as legal guardians of a parent in a permanent comatose state, in the absence of any statutory provision governing such guardianship, for the purpose of safeguarding the individual’s welfare and enabling access to funds for medical care.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners contended that while no specific statute provides for guardianship of persons in a vegetative state, the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is broad enough to protect fundamental rights, including the right to life and health under Article 21. They cited prior decisions of the Madras High Court where similar reliefs were granted in cases involving incapacitated individuals, emphasizing that equity and necessity must guide judicial intervention where law is silent. They stressed that their intentions were purely for the mother’s benefit and that no other family member or institution was available to act.
For the Respondent
The Government Advocate did not oppose the relief but urged the Court to impose conditions to ensure transparency and prevent exploitation. He acknowledged the medical report’s findings and affirmed that the state authorities would comply with any order issued, provided the guardian’s actions are monitored and accountable.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, and the Mental Health Act, 1987, do not contemplate or provide a mechanism for appointing guardians for individuals in a permanent comatose or vegetative state. The absence of legislative provision, however, does not negate the Court’s duty to protect the rights of a person who is utterly incapable of self-representation.
"Since the petitioners are children of Mrs. M. Vijayalakshmi and there is no dispute regarding their relationship or bona fides, by considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the medical report placed before this Court and the welfare of the incapacitated person, this Court by invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is inclined to grant the relief as prayed for."
The Court emphasized that its intervention is not an exercise of legislative power but a necessary application of constitutional principles to prevent injustice. The Court noted that the petitioners’ request is limited to managing assets for medical and essential family expenses, not for personal gain. The Court further held that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to timely and adequate medical care, and denying access to funds would effectively deprive the incapacitated person of this right.
The Court also rejected the notion that silence in statute equals prohibition, affirming that constitutional courts must act where the state machinery fails to provide remedies for urgent humanitarian needs.
The Verdict
The petitioners succeeded. The Madras High Court appointed M. Vasanthakumar and M. Pavithra as legal guardians of Mrs. M. Vijayalakshmi. They are authorized to:
- Deal with all movable and immovable properties jointly held by Mrs. Vijayalakshmi.
- Operate her bank accounts.
- Sell up to 2270 sq.ft. of the jointly owned property to generate funds.
- Use all proceeds exclusively for her medical treatment and essential family expenses.
The petitioners are directed to maintain detailed accounts of all expenditures and submit them to the Court upon request. The appointment is strictly for the protection of Mrs. Vijayalakshmi’s interests, and any action detrimental to her welfare will be subject to legal consequences. No costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Guardianship Can Be Judicially Created in Emergencies
- Practitioners may now invoke Article 226 to seek guardianship for comatose or permanently incapacitated individuals where no statutory mechanism exists.
- The Court’s willingness to act under constitutional equity sets a precedent for cases involving elderly patients in vegetative states, persons with severe dementia, or those in persistent unconsciousness.
- This relief is available only when the petitioner is a close family member with no conflict of interest and demonstrates bona fide intent.
Financial Access Requires Accountability
- Any authority granted to manage assets must be tied to strict accounting obligations.
- Courts will require periodic reporting or audit mechanisms to prevent misuse.
- Sale of property must be limited to what is necessary for medical care; speculative or non-essential expenditures are prohibited.
Statutory Gaps Do Not Bar Judicial Intervention
- The absence of a specific law does not prevent courts from acting under constitutional mandates.
- This judgment reinforces that Article 21 (right to life) includes access to medical care and financial means to sustain it.
- Legal practitioners should consider filing writ petitions under Article 226 in similar cases, supported by medical reports and affidavits of necessity.
