In a significant ruling in the matter of Janaki Suresh v/s Union of India Through the Secretary, Woman and Child Welfar, Through office of Law & Justice, New marine Lines Mumbai & Others, the Bombay High Court has appointed Mrs. Janaki Suresh as the legal guardian of her husband, Mr. Suresh Subramanian Iyer, who has been in a persistent vegetative state since December 2021. This decision allows Mrs. Suresh to manage her husband's finances and affairs, including operating his bank accounts and managing his movable and immovable properties.
Background of the Case:
The case was brought before the High Court under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, with Mrs. Janaki Suresh seeking relief and asking the Court to declare her as the legal guardian of her husband. Mr. Iyer, employed with the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company, had been admitted to the AL Dhannah Hospital in Abu Dhabi in December 2021 following a medical emergency. He was diagnosed with hypoglycemic encephalopathy and was subsequently placed in a vegetative state. Since then, Mr. Iyer has been under long-term care, including physiotherapy and rehabilitation, and remains unable to communicate or manage his personal and financial affairs.
The Petitioner’s Struggles:
Mrs. Suresh described her financial and emotional struggles in her petition. As the sole caregiver for Mr. Iyer and their three children, she faced severe financial constraints in managing her household and the medical care of her husband. She approached various financial institutions, including banks and depositories, to seek permission to manage her husband's accounts but was denied. The institutions requested a legal declaration or order from a court to authorize her to operate Mr. Iyer’s affairs.
In addition to her personal challenges, Mrs. Suresh is also responsible for her elderly mother-in-law, who is 78 years old, and for supporting her children’s education. Despite Mr. Iyer having emergency savings, they have nearly been exhausted due to the prolonged nature of his medical condition.
Medical Evidence and Court Proceedings:
Several medical reports from the AL Dhannah Hospital and the Embassy of India in Abu Dhabi confirmed that Mr. Iyer was in a comatose, vegetative state with no significant improvement since his hospitalization. The medical documents, including reports dated 2nd August 2023 and 6th February 2024, confirmed that Mr. Iyer’s condition remained unchanged. His inability to communicate or manage his affairs necessitated the involvement of the Court to protect his assets and ensure the well-being of his family.
Initially, the Bombay High Court had directed the Dean of All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) to verify Mr. Iyer's medical condition. However, due to challenges in conducting a video consultation with the treating doctors in Abu Dhabi, the Court later sought assistance from the Indian High Commissioner in the UAE. The Indian Embassy in Abu Dhabi played a crucial role in facilitating the medical certification process, and the latest report confirmed the continued vegetative state of Mr. Iyer.
The Court's Judgment:
Upon reviewing the facts, the Court invoked the doctrine of parens patriae, which allows the state to act as a guardian for those who cannot care for themselves. The doctrine is often applied in cases where individuals are unable to manage their affairs due to severe medical conditions. The Court acknowledged the lack of adequate legal mechanisms to address such urgent guardianship situations and decided to step in.
Drawing on a recent decision in Mayuresh Dipak Nadkarni vs. Union of India (WPL-140 of 2024), the Court recognized the pressing human need for the appointment of a legal guardian in such cases.
It noted that while existing laws like the Mental Health Care Act, 2017 and the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 address guardianship issues, there were gaps that did not cater to urgent cases where a person is incapacitated due to severe medical conditions.
Court's Directions:
In its final ruling, the Bombay High Court made the following key directions:
Appointment of Legal Guardian: Mrs. Janaki Suresh was officially recognized as the legal guardian of her husband, Mr. Suresh Subramanian Iyer.
Authority to Operate Financial Affairs: The Court directed all concerned banks, financial institutions, and authorities to accept Mrs. Suresh’s status as legal guardian and allow her to manage her husband’s bank accounts and assets.
No Objection from Family: The Court took into account the consent of Mr. Iyer’s family members, including his mother and children, who had no objection to Mrs. Suresh being appointed as the legal guardian.
Welfare of the Family: The Court emphasized the importance of ensuring the welfare of the entire family, which includes not only Mr. Iyer but also his elderly mother and young children, and recognized the financial strain caused by his inability to contribute.
Conclusion:
This landmark decision underscores the need for judicial intervention in cases where individuals, due to severe medical conditions, are unable to manage their personal and financial affairs. It also highlights the importance of compassionate and timely judicial relief in protecting the rights and well-being of families caught in such distressing situations.
The Court’s decision ensures that Mrs. Janaki Suresh can now act on behalf of her husband, providing her with the legal authority necessary to support her family and manage Mr. Iyer’s affairs during this challenging period.
MENTAL HEALTHCARE ACT, 2017
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956
Constitution of India, 1950
