The Delhi High Court on April 20, 2026, granted relief to a petitioner seeking flexibility in submitting medical reports for her critically ill husband, holding that strict insistence on institutional reports may not be necessary in all cases.
Background of the Case
The case, Gurpreet Kaur Maini vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., arose from a dispute over the nature of medical reports required to be submitted before a district court. The petitioner, wife of a 78-year-old patient suffering from severe neurological conditions including advanced dementia and Alzheimer’s disease, challenged an order that mandated periodic reports exclusively from the Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences (IHBAS).
According to the plea, her husband’s condition was irreversible and left him wheelchair-bound, immunocompromised, and entirely dependent. The petitioner had earlier been appointed as his guardian under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
She argued that forcing the patient to undergo repeated institutional evaluations was medically unsafe and unnecessary, especially when reports from his regular treating doctor were already being submitted without objection earlier.
Hearing the matter, Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav examined the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act and noted that the law does not restrict courts from granting appropriate support mechanisms, even in the absence of detailed rules.
The Court observed that,
“there is no embargo under the provisions… to consider granting total support to the person with disability requiring such support.”
It also clarified that merely because specific rules have not been framed by the State, authorities cannot avoid exercising powers granted under the statute. The bench referred to earlier Supreme Court rulings to support this interpretation.
Importantly, the Court recognized the practical difficulties faced by patients with severe and degenerative conditions, emphasizing that procedural requirements must not override medical realities.
The High Court permitted the petitioner to approach the concerned district judge for authorization of “total support” for the patient under the law.
Pending such consideration, the Court directed that the insistence on IHBAS reports be dispensed with. It held that reports from the patient’s treating private doctor would be sufficient for compliance.
With these directions, the petition was disposed of.
Case Details:
Case Title: Gurpreet Kaur Maini vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C) 5294/2026
Judge: Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Decision Date: April 20, 2026
