The High Court of Delhi has held that there is no legal embargo under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (“RPwD Act”) on granting “total support” to a person with disability requiring such assistance, and that the absence of framed rules cannot be a ground to refuse exercise of statutory powers conferred by the legislature. The judgment was delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav while disposing of a writ petition filed by the wife of a 78-year-old patient suffering from advanced vascular dementia, irreversible Alzheimer’s disease, Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus (post-VP shunt), recurrent seizures, and severe cognitive and physical impairment — a condition that is chronic, degenerative, and irreversible, rendering the patient wheelchair-bound, immunocompromised, and fully dependent.
The Petitioner, Gurpreet Kaur Maini, had challenged the insistence of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, South, Saket Courts, Delhi, directing submission of periodic medical reports of her husband, Sh. Jivtesh Singh Maini, exclusively from the Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences (“IHBAS”), requiring his physical production for such assessment. The Petitioner contended that such insistence was medically unsafe, disproportionate, and contrary to both constitutional guarantees and the legislative mandate under the RPwD Act, given the extreme fragility of the patient’s condition.
The background to the petition is as follows. By an order dated May 31, 2024, the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge had appointed the Petitioner as guardian of the patient under Section 14 of the RPwD Act and directed submission of medical status reports every three months. The Petitioner claims to have consistently complied with this direction, and the reports of the treating private physician had been accepted without objection for a period of time. Further, the IHBAS had itself declared the patient “unfit to stand trial”, on the basis of which the patient was granted permanent exemption from physical appearance by the learned Special Court, CBI, Rouse Avenue, on August 11, 2025. However, by an order dated January 5, 2026, the reports of the treating private medical practitioner were refused to be accepted and it was insisted that the Petitioner produce periodic assessment reports only from IHBAS, necessarily requiring physical production of the patient. It was in this context that the present writ petition was filed.
The Court examined Section 14 of the RPwD Act, particularly its first proviso, which indicates that the District Court or the designated authority, as the case may be, may grant total support to a person with disability requiring such support, or where limited guardianship is to be granted repeatedly, in which event the decision regarding the nature and manner of support is to be reviewed by the Court or the designated authority. The Government’s counsel had pointed out that while Sub-Sections 1 and 2(b) of Section 101 of the RPwD Act empower the State Government to frame rules for providing limited guardianship, no rules had been framed for the provision of total support. The Court, however, rejected the contention that the absence of rules would operate as a bar, observing that “there is no embargo under the provisions of the RWPD Act to consider granting total support to the person with disability requiring such support. The absence of the rules would not be the sole factor for the concerned authority, not to exercise the statutory power.” The Court relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Orissa State (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Board v. Orient Paper Mills, (2003) 10 SCC 421, in support of this position.
In view of the aforesaid findings, the Court permitted the Petitioner to approach the concerned District Judge for authorization of grant of total support to the patient under the RPwD Act. Further, until such time as the concerned District Judge takes a final view on the matter, the Court directed that the insistence on IHBAS reports shall stand dispensed with and that the reports of the patient’s treating doctor shall suffice for the purpose of periodic compliance before the concerned court.
The writ petition was accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid directions.
Cause Title: Gurpreet Kaur Maini v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. | Case No.: W.P.(C) 5294/2026 | Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav | Date of Decision: April 20, 2026
Click HERE for full Judgment.
Lawcutor 