Deals & Matter

Kanchana Rai Vs. State Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors.

Environmental Law

NGT Case

Kanchana Rai Vs. State Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors.
  • O.M.P. (I) (COMM.) 349/2022
  • 29 November 2022
  • Delhi High Court

Issue

The case before the Delhi High Court concerned a dispute over the guardianship, care, and management of the personal and financial affairs of a prominent and wealthy public figure, referred to as Mr. DMP, a seven-time Member of Parliament from Bihar. In 2019, Mr. DMP was diagnosed with Fronto-Temporal Dementia (FTD), a progressive neurodegenerative condition affecting memory, behavior, and decision-making capacity.

The petitioner, Mrs. SD, a 76-year-old woman recognized in official and judicial records as Mr. DMP’s lawful wife, alleged that she had been forcibly separated from her husband and that his assets, valued at over ₹3,000 crores, were under the exclusive control of Ms. UD—a long-time companion of Mr. DMP—and others. She alleged that Mr. DMP was incapable of making informed decisions and was being manipulated by Ms. UD and her associates to the detriment of his family and estate.

The central legal question was whether the Court, exercising its parens patriae jurisdiction, should appoint Mrs. SD as the sole legal guardian of Mr. DMP for both his medical decisions and the management of his substantial movable and immovable assets, in light of his mental incapacity and the competing claims of control by different family factions.

Petitioners’ Side

Represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Vikas Singh, Mrs. SD argued:

1. Mental Incompetence of Mr. DMP

 Multiple medical assessments, including those by AIIMS in 2019 and 2021, confirmed that Mr. DMP suffered from FTD, leaving him unable to recognize close family members or make coherent decisions. In a video-conference interaction with the Court, he could not recall basic facts about his family, daily routine, or surroundings.

2. Lawful Marital Status

 Mrs. SD pointed out that in electoral records, prior judicial proceedings, and government documents, she was consistently recorded as Mr. DMP’s wife. They had been married since 1960, had three sons together (one deceased), and she had been part of his personal and professional life for decades.

3. Control by Ms. UD

She alleged that Ms. UD, who had lived with Mr. DMP for around 47 years but was never legally married to him, had taken control of his household, medical care, business decisions, and properties. She claimed Ms. UD isolated Mr. DMP from his lawful family and was instrumental in removing both of their sons from the family pharmaceutical business, transferring shares and assets to herself or to her preferred relatives.

4. Pattern of Abuse and Isolation

Relying on police status reports from 2019, Mrs. SD alleged that she and another female relative, Mrs. RD, had been kept under virtual confinement, denied proper food and care, and subjected to humiliation by Ms. UD and domestic staff. She claimed similar manipulation was being exercised over Mr. DMP.

5. Relief Soughtt

She sought a declaration appointing her as the sole legal guardian for all purposes medical, personal, and financial of Mr. DMP; a mandamus directing authorities to facilitate her role as guardian; and interim arrangements to prevent dissipation of assets.

6. Legal Basis

She relied on Sections 14–17 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 (MHA-2017), the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPWD-2016), and the Court’s inherent parens patriae jurisdiction. She argued that under these laws, the lawful spouse ranks above any caregiver in the hierarchy for appointment as a nominated representative and that the Court could override competing claims to act in the best interest of an incapacitated person.

Deals & Matter Corner

The Delhi High Court restrained DTIDC from

Delhi High Court appeal challenges the disputed

View More

Articles & Publications

Varun Singh, founding partner at Foresight Law

The Division Bench of the Delhi High

View More
Blogs

The digital transformation of healthcare in India

Public procurement plays a vital role in

View More

Respondent’s Side

The respondents comprised:

  • R-3 Mr. RJS (younger son) and R-4 Mr. RS (elder son) – who had their own disputes over past business control.
  • R-5 Ms. UD – claiming to be Mr. DMP’s wife/companion.
  • R-6 Mrs. KR – widow of the deceased son, living with Mr. DMP and Ms. UD.
  • Mr. US – Mr. DMP’s younger brother, allied with Ms. UD.

Key points from their defence:

  • Capacity Not Entirely Lost – Counsel for Ms. UD and Mrs. KR relied on earlier Metropolitan Magistrate orders (2020) stating that while Mr. DMP had dementia, he retained capacity to make some decisions, including voluntarily agreeing to medical assessments.
  • Adequate Care Being Provided – They argued that Mr. DMP was living comfortably in his official residence, receiving round-the-clock medical attention, and that there was no neglect. Medical decisions, they said, were being taken jointly by those close to him, including Ms. UD and Mrs. KR.
  • Petitioner’s Past Absence – They alleged that Mrs. SD had been living separately for years and had little recent nvolvement in Mr. DMP’s care, thereby questioning her suitability as guardian.
  • Financial Transparency – Undertakings were given not to alienate or encumber Mr. DMP’s properties or bank accounts, and bank operation details were to be filed in sealed cover.
  • Opposition to Sole Guardianship – They resisted Mrs. SD’s plea for sole guardianship, proposing instead that if any guardian were needed, decisions should be shared among multiple family members or a neutral third party to avoid concentration of control.

Court’s Observations

Justice Prathiba M. Singh made extensive factual findings and procedural observations:

  • Medical Incapacity Proven:

The Court placed weight on AIIMS’ medical board reports diagnosing FTD, the Local Commissioner’s reports, and its own direct interaction with Mr. DMP, in which he was unable to answer simple questions or identify family members.

  • Household Control by Ms. UD:

From interactions with multiple parties, the Court noted that Ms. UD had de facto control over Mr. DMP’s residence, daily routine, and medical care.

  • Family Conflicts and Asset Risk:

With assets exceeding ₹3,000 crores and significant business interests (including a major pharmaceutical company), the Court saw a real risk of mismanagement or dissipation in the absence of a structured guardianship arrangement.

  • Past Procedural History:

The Court reviewed prior habeas corpus proceedings, police investigations (which corroborated many of the petitioner’s allegations of isolation and control), and the Metropolitan Magistrate’s orders. It noted that no Mental Health Review Board had been constituted in Delhi, limiting statutory options under the MHA-2017.

  • Jurisdiction and Legal Basis:

The Court affirmed its authority to act under parens patriae jurisdiction to protect the welfare of an incapacitated person and manage their affairs in exceptional situations, especially where statutory mechanisms are absent or inadequate.

  • Interim Arrangements Already in Place:

The Court highlighted that the State Government has the power to vary or borrow vacancies from future cycles to accommodate deserving candidates, especially in exceptional cases like this.

  • Jyoti Joshi’s Intervention Rejected:

The Court recorded earlier interim orders allowing Mrs. SD limited visitation with Mr. DMP, directing maintenance payments to her of ₹25 lakhs per month, and preserving the status quo over assets.

Court’s Decision

The Court concluded that immediate protective measures were required to safeguard both the health and estate of Mr. DMP, pending final adjudication:

  • Appointment of Interim Guardian

Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw (Retd.) was appointed as Interim Guardian for all movable and immovable assets, including bank accounts, investments, and property management. He was authorized to

  • Release funds for Mr. DMP’s medical treatment, household maintenance, and staff salaries.
  • Secure income streams such as dividends, rent, and lease payments.
  • Preserve and protect assets against unauthorized transfer.
  • File monthly reports with the Court.
  • Medical Decision Making

Day-to-day medical care decisions were to be taken jointly by Ms. UD, Mr. US, and Mrs. KR, with the interim guardian and Mrs. SD kept regularly informed.

  • Visitation Rights

Mrs. SD, her sons, and family could visit Mr. DMP in hospital, subject to Apollo Hospital’s medical protocols and a two-person limit at a time.

  • Cooperation Orders

All parties, including Mr. DMP’s long-time personal secretary, were directed to cooperate fully with the interim guardian, hand over all relevant documents, and allow access to records.

  • Will Not Considered

An alleged 2011 will of Mr. DMP was produced in sealed cover but returned to counsel, as the Court held it irrelevant while he was alive.

  • Final Disposition

These orders were expressly interim, “subject to the final decision in this matter,” recognising that the guardianship arrangement might be modified after further hearings.

Deals and Matter

Disclaimer

This website is for informational purposes only and is not intended to advertise or solicit work as per the Bar Council of India rules. By accessing www.foresightlawoffices.com, you acknowledge that you are seeking information about Foresight Law voluntarily. Nothing on this site constitutes legal advice or creates a lawyer-client relationship. Foresight Law is not responsible for any actions taken based on the content here. External links do not imply endorsement. Please do not share confidential information via this website. For details, review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

I Agree I Disagre

Scroll to Top