Delhi High Court refuses foreign citizen sister’s guardianship plea for disabled Indian sibling

 “We also observe that in case there are some visa-related issues concerning appellant number 2, the Ministry of External Affairs and the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, will extend fullest cooperation to the Appellants,” the July 22 order said.

The woman, a New Zealand citizen, had approached the high court seeking appointment as guardian of her brother, who suffers from Cerebral Palsy, seizures, intellectual disability and 100 per cent locomotor disability since birth. She said that her brother could not take care of himself, and their parents had already passed away; therefore, she sought guardianship of his person and property.

Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia have upheld the rejection of a non – Indian citizen sister’s plea seeking guardianship of her disabled brother.

Non-Indian citizen sister, disabled brother and guardianship

Justice Sanjeev Narula, through the order dated November 7, 2024, observed that the brother, a citizen of India, had been diagnosed with Cerebral Palsy, Dolichocephaly with seizures and intellectual diabilty and suffers 100 per cent locomotor disabilities from birth, and since the demise of their parents, the sister had taken the responsibility for care of the brother in Australia. 

Later, Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav on February 25, 2026, relying on Rule 17(1)(iii)(a) of the National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Rules, 2000, rejected the sister’s plea, which required the proposed guardian to be an Indian citizen. It held that the local level committee should ensure that the person whose name has been suggested for appointment as guardian is a citizen of India.

The court left it open to the woman claiming guardianship, who was not an Indian citizen, to nominate an Indian citizen who may be appointed as a statutory guardian of the person suffering from disabilities with special needs. 

‘Sister to nominate Indian  guardian for brother’

The court added that any nomination made in this respect of a statutory guardian should be duly examined and considered by the local level committee. It issued a direction that the statutory guardian, when appointed, should, together with the person claiming the guardianship, be obliged to attend to the welfare and upbringing of the person concerned. 

The court held that the brother’s welfare is paramount and, therefore, some mechanism may be devised by the court itself to ensure his welfare and well-being. It reiterated the already observed order and arrangement passed by the single judge and said that the same should remain in force unless the same is modified by a competent court/ auhtority.

The court noted that the siblings were presently residing in Australia and the brother’s Australian visa had already expired, and ordered that if there are any visa-related issues concerning him, the Ministry of External Affairs and the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, will extend fullest cooperation to the siblings.