Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU

JOSHI
Signing Date:07.01.2022 16:35:50

$~28
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 6th January, 2022
+ W.P.(C) 1271/2020
SATULA DEVI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Varun Singh, Ms. Deepeika Kalia,
Mr. Kapish Seth, Mr. Mrityunjay
Singh, Ms. Alankrit Dwivedi, Mr.
Akshay Dev, Mr. Abhijeet Pandey
and Mr. Ytharth Kumar, Advocates.
versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Anupam Srivastava, ASC,
GNCTD and Mr. Vasuh Misra,
Advocate for R-1. (M:9730835755)
Mr. K.K. Rai, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Anshul Rai, Mr. S.K. Pandey, Mr.
Chandrashekhar AC, Mr. Awanish
Kumar and Ms. Sreoshi Chatterjee,
Advocates for R-3.
Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Ravi Sharma, Mr. Anjani
Kumar Rai, Ms. Gunjan Mangla and
Ms. Madhullika Rai Sharma,
Advocates for R-4.
Dr. Abhishek Singhvi, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. B. Shravanth Shanker,
Advocate for R-5. (M:9711211221)
Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
D. Abhinav Rao, Advocate for
applicant Mr. Umesh Sharma.
(M:9818144867)
Mr. D. Abhinav Rao, Advocate for R-
6.

W.P.(C) 1271/2020 Page 1 of 23

 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU
JOSHI
Signing Date:07.01.2022 16:35:50

Mr. Sanjeev Sagar, Standing Counsel

with Ms. Nazia Parveen, Advocate for
SDMC.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through video conferencing.
CM APPL.171/2022 in W.P.(C) 9643/2018
2. This petition relates to guardianship which was sought in respect of a
senior citizen who is referred to, since inception, as Mr. DMP, who was a
Member of Parliament and was diagnosed with `fronto-temporal dementia’.
The guardianship sought by the Petitioner/Mrs. Satula Devi (hereinafter
“Mrs. SD”) – i.e., Mr. DMP’s wife, was vehemently contested by other
family members of Mr. DMP and the petition was heard by this Court from
time to time. Mrs. SD was supported by her two sons – Respondent No.
4/Mr. Rajiv Sharma (hereinafter “Mr. RS”), Respondent No.3/Mr. Ranjit
Sharma (hereinafter “Mr. RJS”) and their respective families. However,
Respondent No.5/Ms. Uma Devi (hereinafter “Ms. UD”), who was Mr.
DMP’s companion, Intervener/Mr. Umesh Sharma (hereinafter “Mr. US”)–
Mr. DMP’s brother, and Respondent No.6/Mrs. Kanchana Rai (hereinafter
“Mrs. KR”), - Mr. DMP’s daughter-in-law whose husband was the deceased
third son of Mr. DMP, and her sons were opposing the present writ petition.
3. In the writ petition, the legal position emerging from the two statutes
i.e., The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPWD-2016) and
The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 (MHA-2017) was analysed along with the
records of the multiple disputes between the parties including a habeas
corpus petition which was heard before a Ld. Division Bench of this Court.

W.P.(C) 1271/2020 Page 2 of 23

 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU
JOSHI
Signing Date:07.01.2022 16:35:50

Mr. DMP owned a large quantum of moveable and immoveable assets

including fixed deposits, investments, immoveable property, shares in
leading companies etc., running into more than Rs. 3000 crores. The exact
value of assets was not yet fully determined.
4. Vide judgment dated 29th October, 2021, a detailed mechanism was
put in place by this Court, for taking care of Mr. DMP and his financial
affairs. As per the said judgement, a Guardianship Committee along with a
Supervising Guardian i.e., Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw (Retd.), was
appointed to take decisions unanimously in respect of all affairs of Mr.
DMP. The directions issued were in the following terms:
“271. In the above legal and factual background, this Court
holds that the present case is one which reveals exceptional
circumstances for exercise of parens patriae jurisdiction as
also jurisdiction under the RPWD-2016 and MHA-2017.
Under Section 14(1) proviso of the RPWD-2016, total
support would have to be provided considering that
Mr.DMP is unable to take any decisions for his own welfare
whatsoever. Under the MHA-2017, nominated
representative has to also be appointed for taking decisions
for medical care and treatment of Mr. DMP.
272. Moreover, the nominated representative or the
guardian need not always be a single individual. Especially
in the present case, the movable and immovable assets and
financial affairs of Mr. DMP are vast; it would be
physically impossible for any particular individual to be
able to exercise control and judgment, or to take proper
decisions in respect of Mr. DMP’s healthcare. Accordingly,
this Court is of the opinion that a Guardianship Committee
would deserve to be appointed for the purpose of taking
care of Mr. DMP and his financial affairs. In the above
circumstances, the following directions are issued:
a) A Guardianship Committee of Mrs. SD, Mr. RS and
Mr. US, i.e. the wife, son and brother, related by blood

W.P.(C) 1271/2020 Page 3 of 23

 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU
JOSHI
Signing Date:07.01.2022 16:35:50

and marriage (as given in the order of precedence under

both the MHA-2017 and RPWD-2016), is constituted for
the purposes for acting both as a nominated
representative committee under the MHA-2017 and for
providing total support under the RPWD-2016. The said
Committee shall take unanimous decisions in respect of
all affairs of Mr. DMP including medical treatment,
healthcare decisions qua daily living, financial affairs
dealing with movable and immovable assets, decisions
qua the shareholding of Mr. DMP etc. The said
Guardianship Committee shall consult with Mr. DMP to
the extent possible. The said Guardianship Committee
shall also be entitled to operate the bank accounts and
deal with the investments of Mr. DMP. However, all
decisions of the Guardianship Committee have to be
unanimous.
b) If a unanimous decision is not possible on any aspect
and there is disagreement among members of the
Guardianship Committee, such aspects shall be referred
to Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw (Retd.), who was already
appointed as the interim guardian vide order of this
Court dated 8th September, 2021, who shall now act as
the `Supervising Guardian’. On such aspects, where there
is divergence or disagreement, the decisions of the
Supervising Guardian, shall be final and binding on all
parties.
c) All banks, financial institutions, companies, hospitals,
doctors, etc. shall be bound by and shall give effect to the
directions issued in paragraphs (a) and (b) above.
d) Insofar as medical treatment and daily living is
concerned, Ms. UD and Mrs. KR can give their
suggestions and recommendations to the Guardianship
Committee. However, it would be for the Committee to
take the final decision.
e) Mr. DMP shall continue to reside in his official
residence. Mrs. SD and any one female family member
i.e., Mr. DMP’s daughter-in-law, are entitled to and are
accordingly, permitted to reside in the official residence

W.P.(C) 1271/2020 Page 4 of 23

 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU
JOSHI
Signing Date:07.01.2022 16:35:50

of Mr. DMP, if they choose to. The residence of Mr.

DMP, shall be an ‘open house’ for free ingress and
egress of all close family members including both his
sons, daughters-in-law, grandchildren and their families,
brothers and his family and any other close relatives, as
may be permitted by the Committee.
f) Ms. UD can continue to live in the official residence, if
she so chooses, but shall not prevent any family member,
as directed above, from visiting or residing in the said
residence of Mr. DMP.
g) It is also directed that the DCP (Crime Branch), Mr.
Joy Tirkey, who had earlier conducted the investigation
pursuant to orders of the Ld. Division Bench in the
Habeas Corpus petition, shall pay periodic visits at least
once a week, to ensure Mr. DMP is comfortable at the
residence, in the company of his family members. Any
family member who causes any breach of peace and
tranquillity can be barred, by the Committee by
unanimous decision from visiting the residence of Mr.
DMP. If the Supervising Guardian receives any
complaint from any family member or Ms. UD or Mrs.
KR regarding any commotion or breach of peace, at the
residence, he would also be empowered to pass orders
barring entry of any individual into the official residence.
h) The Guardianship Committee shall have access to all
documents and records relating to the finances,
properties, shareholding, investments, etc., of Mr. DMP
to enable the Committee to take decisions, keeping in
mind the will and preferences of Mr. DMP. To this end,
access shall be provided by both Mr. T.R. Narayanan and
Mr. Shrinath Banerjee– Secretaries of Mr. DMP, to the
accounts and all records of Mr. DMP.
i) The Medical Board constituted by this Court consisting
of following three members:
i. Dr. M.V. Padma, Professor & HOD, Neurology,
Chief – Neuroscience Centre, AIIMS, New Delhi.
Email: [email protected]
(9810819167);

W.P.(C) 1271/2020 Page 5 of 23

 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU
JOSHI
Signing Date:07.01.2022 16:35:50

ii. Dr. Achal Srivastava, Professor Department of

Neurology, AIIMS, New Delhi. Email:
[email protected] (9811178784); and
iii. Dr. Nitish Naik, Professor, Department of
Cardiology, AIIMS, New Delhi. Email:
[email protected] (9810416170);
would examine Mr. DMP every month at least once a
month, which shall be facilitated by the Guardianship
Committee. The chair of this Medical Board shall
continue to be Dr. M.V. Padma. The monthly reports,
after examination, shall be submitted to the Supervising
Guardian. If any emergency medical decision is to be
taken and all members of the Committee are not
available, any one of the members of the Guardianship
Committee would be entitled to take the decision of
hospitalization, in consultation with the above doctor,
which shall then be telephonically communicated to the
other two members of the Committee.
j) The Committee would also be empowered to delegate
everyday chores in the household to a person whom the
Committee trusts, for a specific purpose, but who shall be
accountable to the Guardianship Committee. The
decisions taken by the Guardianship Committee shall be
continuously informed to the Supervising Guardian -
Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw (Retd.), on a fortnightly basis.
The above arrangement at this stage, shall continue at
least, for a period of three years, which is also the time
period contemplated under the RPWD (Delhi) Rules-
2018, for limited guardianship. A status report shall be
submitted at the end of every six months, by the
Supervising Guardian to the Court, to review the present
arrangement of guardianship, if required. If there is any
improvement of Mr. DMP’s health condition, including
his mental condition, modification of the above
arrangement can be sought by moving an application in
the present petition.
k) There are various videos and photographs etc., filed by
the parties and by the Local Commissioner. All this

W.P.(C) 1271/2020 Page 6 of 23

 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU
JOSHI
Signing Date:07.01.2022 16:35:50

electronic data shall be preserved and saved, along with

the electronic record of this petition with a #hash value
so that it is not tampered with, in any manner and is
available for future reference. The IT Department, High
Court of Delhi shall take requisite steps in this regard.”

5. Pursuant to the said order, the Guardianship Committee was

constituted and various decisions have been taken through the said
mechanism, especially by the Supervising Guardian. However today, an
application has been preferred by Mrs. SD placing on record the fact that
Mr. DMP has since passed away on 27th December, 2021. The application
details various incidents and allegations concerning the behaviour of the
family members of Mr. DMP during and after his demise and the alleged
utilization of his assets by the contesting Respondents, stated to be contrary
to the orders of this Court. In view thereof, the application seeks directions
concerning continuance of the Supervising Guardian’s mandate and
compliance of directions of the Court passed vide order dated 29th October,
2021. The application seeks the following reliefs:
“(a) Pass an order directing that the status of Justice Rajiv
Sahai Endlaw (Retd.) as the Supervising Guardian of DMP’s
estate will continue till such time order of this Hon’ble Court
is complied with in letter and spirit and upon making his
report to that effect to court.
(b) Direct that property of Late DMP be handed over to
admitted legal heir of DMP by distributing one-fourth share
to each branch namely (i) one-fourth share to Petitioner, (ii)
one-fourth share to family of Rajeev Sharma, (iii) one-fourth
share to family of Ranjit Sharma (iv) one-fourth share to
family of Late Devinder Rai;
(c) That action accordance with law should be taken against
Respondent No.5, Respondent No.6, Mr Umesh Sharma and
Mr TR Narayanan for flouting the directions issued by this
Hon’ble Court on 29.10.2021 or any other order of this

W.P.(C) 1271/2020 Page 7 of 23

 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU
JOSHI
Signing Date:07.01.2022 16:35:50

Hon’ble Court.
(d) Till the pendency of final hearing of the application, the
status of Petitioner and her son quo prior 27.12.2021 to be
maintained.
(e) The amounts used by Respondent No.5, Respondent No.6
and Mr Umesh Sharma from the personal and company
accounts of DMP in violation of the undertaking given before
this Hon’ble Court should be utilized for payment of Costs of
lawyers fee and after adjustment towards the same, the
remaining costs shall also be awarded as exemplary costs in
favor the Petitioner;
(f) Pass any other order which this Hon’ble Court may deem
fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
6. There are manifold allegations levelled in the application, against the
contesting Respondents in this matter, consequent to which the afore-stated
directions are sought. The allegations include the following:
(i) That the documents relating to various assets and bank accounts
of Mr. DMP were not provided to Mrs. SD, despite specific
directions of this Court and of the Supervising Guardian.
Various entries in the bank statements and details of matured
assets such as fixed deposits and dividends have been cleverly
concealed from Mrs. SD, contrary to orders passed by this
Court on 29th October, 2021.
(ii) The Guardianship Committee has not been allowed to operate
Mr. DMP’s bank accounts and the same continued to be
operated by or under directions of Ms. UD.
(iii) Consultation with the empanelled doctors, appointed vide order
dated 29th October, 2021, was delayed and Mr. DMP was
admitted in the ICU of Apollo Hospital instead of AIIMS,
where the empanelled doctors could not have reviewed Mr.

W.P.(C) 1271/2020 Page 8 of 23

 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU
JOSHI
Signing Date:07.01.2022 16:35:50

DMP’s condition.
(iv) Various unpleasant events took place upon the demise Mr.
DMP, which even involved scuffles between the grandsons of
Mr. DMP.
(v) Even in respect of conduct of cremation of Mr. DMP and last
rites, there was no consensus. Under such circumstances, orders
had to be passed by Justice Endlaw (Retd.) in respect of the
conduct of the cremation of Mr. DMP, etc.
(vi) The details of certain amounts, stated to be worth more than Rs
900 crores, have been mentioned in the application, which are
stated to have been moved from Mr. DMP’s account and
withdrawn in an unexplained manner.
(vii) Respondent Nos.5&6 attempted to withdraw money from the
bank account of Mr. DMP, contrary to the orders passed by the
Supervising Guardian.
(viii) The death certificate issued for Mr. DMP wrongly reflects Ms.
UD as his wife instead of Mrs. SD.
7. At the outset, upon being queried as to the maintainability of the
present application and reliefs sought, in view of the demise of Mr. DMP,
Mr. Vikas Singh, ld. Senior Counsel appearing for Mrs. SD, has relied upon
Section 41(4) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 to argue that even upon
the demise of the ward, till the report of the guardian is received by the
Court, the guardian need not be discharged. The said section reads as under:
“41. Cessation of authority of guardian.—
(1) The powers of a guardian of the person cease—
(a) by his death, removal or discharge;
(b) by the Court of Wards assuming superintendence of the

W.P.(C) 1271/2020 Page 9 of 23

 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU
JOSHI
Signing Date:07.01.2022 16:35:50

person of the ward;

(c) by the ward ceasing to be a minor;
(d) in the case of a female ward, by her marriage to a husband
who is not unfit to be guardian of her person or, if the
guardian was appointed or declared by the Court, by her
marriage to a husband who is not, in the opinion of the Court,
so unfit; or
(e) in the case of a ward whose father was unfit to be guardian
of the person of the ward, by the father ceasing to be so or, if
the father was deemed by the Court to be so unfit, by his
ceasing to be so in the opinion of the Court.
(2) The powers of a guardian of the property cease—
(a) by his death, removal or discharge;
(b) by the Court of Wards assuming superintendence of the
property of the ward; or
(c) by the ward ceasing to be a minor.
(3) When for any cause the powers of a guardian cease, the
Court may require him or, if he is dead, his representative to
deliver as it directs any property in his possession or control
belonging to the ward or any accounts in his possession or
control relating to any past or present property of the ward.
(4) When he has delivered the property or accounts as
required by the Court, the Court may declare him to be
discharged from his liabilities save as regards any fraud which
may subsequently be discovered.”

8. Reliance is also placed by Mr. Vikas Singh, upon the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Sudish Prasad v. Babui Jonhia, (2013) 9 SCC 181 to
state that even upon the death of the ward, the guardian continues to be the
custodian of his estate, i.e., the property becomes custodia legis. He also
submits that the directions given by the Supervising Guardian in respect of
various bank account statements and transactions, dealing with the various
assets of Mr. DMP have not been complied with, as such documents have
not been supplied to Mrs. SD. There are various missing pages/documents in
the said documents, which have been provided. Accordingly, it is argued

W.P.(C) 1271/2020 Page 10 of 23

 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU
JOSHI
Signing Date:07.01.2022 16:35:50

that proper action needs to be taken in accordance with law, to safeguard the
assets of Mr. DMP and consider the unlawful conduct of the Respondents.
9. Dr. Singhvi, ld. Senior Counsel appearing for Ms. UD, submits that an
attempt is being made to sensationalize the entire issue and the application is
not maintainable as there is no legal basis for the same. He submits that the
allegation relating to the siphoning off of Rs.900 crores is completely
baseless, inasmuch as this movement of funds from one account of Mr.
DMP has been made to another account of Mr. DMP himself, in order to put
them in fixed deposits, etc., as also for paying advance tax, approved
expenditure by the Supervising Guardian, and to make payments to be made
in compliance of the order of this Court dated 29th October, 2021. He, thus,
submits that there are no unauthorised expenditures/withdrawals that have
been made from Mr. DMP’s account. He relies upon certain bank statements
of Mr. DMP, which have been placed on record by email through Court
Master, to give reasons for the withdrawal/movement of the amounts
between the accounts of Mr. DMP.
10. On a query from the Court as to the reason for movement of the
amounts from one account of Mr. DMP in SBI, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi to
the account in SBI, Mumbai, he responds that the standing instructions of
Mr. DMP were to broadly keep the balance in both accounts at the same
level. On further query being put to Dr. Singhvi, as to who instructed the
bank for movement of such large sums i.e., Rs. 70 crores, Rs. 25 crores etc.,
from one account of DMP to another account, considering that Mr. DMP has
been suffering from mental ill-health for several months while the Court has
been hearing the matter, the Court has been informed that usually Mr.
Narayanan, Mr. DMP’s secretary, gives the instruction for transfers.

W.P.(C) 1271/2020 Page 11 of 23

 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU
JOSHI
Signing Date:07.01.2022 16:35:50

11. Mr. Sethi, ld. Senior Counsel appearing for Mr. US submits that the
conduct of the meetings of the Guardianship Committee, and dealings with
the movable and immovable assets of Mr. DMP and the bank accounts, have
been strictly in terms of the directions issued by the Supervising Guardian
and there has been no unauthorised transfer or withdrawal by his client.
12. Mr. K.K. Rai, ld. Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. RJS,
brings to the notice of this Court that the shradh ceremonies and rituals of
Mr. DMP are to conclude on 8th January, 2022. Repeatedly, there is
impediment in ingress and egress of the family members in the official
residence where Mr. DMP lived till his demise. He, therefore, prays that
appropriate directions may be issued in this regard.
13. Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani, ld. Senior Counsel appearing for Mr. RS, the
elder son of Mr. DMP, submits that there have been unpleasant events
between the family members, even leading to physical fights, which would
be visible in recordings/CCTV recordings that are available. A perusal of the
same would also show who instigated the acts of violence. He further
submits that transfer of Rs.900 crores in this manner raises suspicion and the
question as to who had given instructions for maintaining equitable balance
between the accounts is also not clear.
14. Heard. At the outset, this Court notes that the present application is a
fresh application which has been filed and the matter is taken up for the first
time after the demise of Mr. DMP on 27th December, 2021. The last rites of
Mr. DMP are still underway. Accordingly, all ld. Senior Counsels appearing
for various parties have only been heard on a preliminary basis.
15. In view of the submissions, this Court observes that it is unfortunate
that the family members have not been able to come together in order to

W.P.(C) 1271/2020 Page 12 of 23

 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU
JOSHI
Signing Date:07.01.2022 16:35:50

perform the cremation and last rites of Mr. DMP and there are serious
disputes even in respect thereof. It is clear from a perusal of the minutes of
proceedings before Justice Endlaw (Retd.), dated 27th December, 2021,
placed on record, that Justice Endlaw (Retd.) had to intervene to even decide
as to who would perform the cremation and last rites of Mr. DMP, in the
following terms:
“9. At this moment, no cognizance can be taken of the desire if
any expressed by DMP in his Will if any, as to who should or
who should not perform the ceremonies pertaining to his
cremation. The cremation and other ceremonies to be thus
performed by Mr. Rajeev Sharma as the eldest son of DMP.
Needless to state that performance or nonperformance of
such ceremonies shall not affect the rights if any in law of
either party to claim succession as an heir of DMP.
Whichsoever party wants to perform any other
ceremony/donation, can perform so in private but all essential
rituals relating to the demise of DMP be performed by Mr.
Rajeev Sharma only.

10. On enquiry, it is not informed that DMP, in his life

expressed any preference for electric cremation. In the
circumstances, cremation to take place today, in the
traditional mode, at Lodhi Crematorium, New Delhi at 1600
hours and all the necessary arrangements be made for the
same immediately and the said time and place be
communicated to all concerned. The expenses of cremation to
be borne from the estate of DMP.

11. I am disturbed about the violence if any which is informed

to have erupted at the hospital immediately after the demise of
DMP and have cautioned all parties, specially Ms. Kanchan
Rai and her sons that there should be untoward incident while
transporting the body of DMP from his official residence to
the Lodhi Crematorium or at the time of cremation and none
should force himself/herself to conduct any ceremonies or

W.P.(C) 1271/2020 Page 13 of 23

 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU
JOSHI
Signing Date:07.01.2022 16:35:50

interfere in the conduct/performance of the cremation and

other ceremonies by Mr. Rajeev Sharma and any violation of
this direction shall be viewed adversely even in the matter of
succession.

12. A copy of this proceeding is being circulated immediately,

well before the appointed time for cremation and is also being
forwarded to Mr. Joy Tirkey, DCP (Crime Branch) who vide
judgement dated 29 October 2021 was entrusted with
maintenance of peace at the residence of DMP, to kindly
ensure that no untoward incident takes place at the residence
or at the cremation of DMP and the ceremonies in public pass
off peaceful and in accordance with what is directed above.”
16. This is indeed an unfortunate situation. The minutes recorded by
Justice Endlaw (Retd.) on 27th December, 2021, show that he was required
to minutely manage and give directions in respect of cremation, last rites,
the manner in which the same is to be performed, etc. The family of Mr.
DMP, consisting of the wife and two sons, families of the three sons,
brother, grandsons and extended family including Ms. UD who claims to be
the companion of Mr. DMP for 48 years, could not even come to a
consensus and agree on giving a respectful farewell to Mr. DMP, over
whose assets they are busy fighting cases in various Courts. Justice Endlaw
(Retd.) also made observations relating to the violence between the family
members post Mr. DMP’s demise, even in the hospital. In view of the fact
that there is no consensus amongst the members of the family as also among
Ms. UD and Mrs. SD, in so far as the conduct of the last rites of Mr. DMP is
concerned, the first and foremost concern of this Court is that the last rites
ought to be conducted in a dignified manner.
17. Further, the purpose of constituting the Guardianship Committee with
the Supervising Guardian was to give an opportunity to the family to evolve

W.P.(C) 1271/2020 Page 14 of 23

 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU
JOSHI
Signing Date:07.01.2022 16:35:50

a working relationship among themselves and come to some amicable

resolution of their dispute, in the interest of Mr. DMP. However, from the
events which have transpired as recorded in some of the proceedings before
Justice Endlaw (Retd.), it is clear that there is no end to the animosity
amongst the family members. The only silver lining is the fact that in the last
two months, post the judgement passed by this Court, prior to his demise,
Mr. DMP may have had some opportunity of meeting his family members
and interacted with them to the extent possible.
18. In this view of the matter and the continuing animosity between the
parties, to ensure that Mr. DMP’s last rites are carried out in a dignified and
peaceful manner, the following directions are issued in respect of the last
rites of Mr. DMP:
(i) All the last rites, shradh ceremony and any other ceremonies
which have to be conducted in accordance with the customs and
traditions for Mr. DMP, shall be conducted by Mr. RS, being
the eldest son of Mr. DMP, with the cooperation of all the
family members concerned and in their presence. Further
directions, if required, may be given by Justice Endlaw (Retd.),
in this regard.
(ii) There shall be no impediment or obstacle created by anyone in
any manner whatsoever in the entry and exit of the family
members and grandchildren, near and dear ones and relatives of
Mr. DMP. Family members, relatives, personal, professional
and political acquaintances, employees and associates of Mr.
DMP shall be permitted to attend and pay respects, in the
ceremonies which are to conclude on 8th January 2022, in a

W.P.(C) 1271/2020 Page 15 of 23

 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU
JOSHI
Signing Date:07.01.2022 16:35:50

dignified and graceful manner.

(iii) Mr. Joy Tirkey, DCP (Crime Branch), shall ensure that any
third parties who have been engaged by any person/s, who are
present at the Safdarjung house of Mr. DMP, shall not create
any hindrance whatsoever in implementation of the above
directions. Mr. Tirkey to also ensure that the last rites and all
other ceremonies are conducted without any impediment, from
anyone.
19. Insofar as the allegations relating to the medical treatment of Mr.
DMP are concerned, considering the fact that Mr. DMP has passed away in
Apollo Hospital where he was also being treated earlier, this Court is not
inclined to go into the said allegations.
20. Insofar as the incidents of violence between the grandchildren and
other family members are concerned, the Court has perused the photographs
which have been placed on record which show an unfortunate situation
where the young grandsons of Mr. DMP appear to have entered into a
scuffle. Accordingly, the said allegations would be examined, if required,
after a reply to this application, is filed by the Respondents.
21. In so far as the issue of assets, fixed deposits, bank accounts,
immovable/movable assets, any investments, shares etc. are concerned,
since Mr. DMP is no more, the Court has been informed that a probate
petition being TEST. CAS. 1/2022 has been filed by Mrs. KR, who claims
to be the executor of the Will stated to have been executed by Mr. DMP and
whose children are claimed to be the beneficiaries of the Will. The same is
stated to be pending before the Original Side of this Court.
22. Considering the fact that this Court had appointed the Guardianship

W.P.(C) 1271/2020 Page 16 of 23

 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU
JOSHI
Signing Date:07.01.2022 16:35:50

Committee and Supervising Guardian vide its previous order dated 29th
October, 2021, in order to safeguard the movable and immovable assets of
Mr. DMP, considering his demise and the continuous disputes between the
family members brought to the notice of this Court today, it is clear that the
Guardianship Committee cannot effectively function. Moreover, since Mr.
DMP has passed away, the members of the Guardianship Committee may
possibly also have claims in the estate of Mr. DMP and would be conflicted
in taking decisions. There is also a need to safeguard and secure the assets so
that the same, which run into thousands of crores, are not frittered away or
misused in any manner. In view of the same, the following directions are
issued:
(i) In view of the fact that Mr. DMP is no more, the Guardianship
Committee shall stand disbanded and Justice Rajiv Sahai
Endlaw (Retd.), shall act as the Sole Guardian for the estate and
all assets of Mr. DMP henceforth. He shall exercise the same
powers mutatis mutandis, as those of the Supervising Guardian
and the Guardianship Committee, in terms of order dated 29th
October, 2021. Mr. T.R. Narayanan and Mr. Shrinath Banerjee,
Personal Assistants of Mr. DMP, and all parties, shall now
proceed strictly in accordance with the instructions given by the
Sole Guardian in respect of the assets of Mr. DMP.
(ii) A report shall be placed before this Court, by Justice Endlaw
(Retd.), within a period of two weeks, in respect of the
following aspects:
(a) Whether the various directions concerning Mr. DMP and
his assets, passed by this Court have been complied with

W.P.(C) 1271/2020 Page 17 of 23

 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU
JOSHI
Signing Date:07.01.2022 16:35:50

or not in terms of the Court’s earlier orders and the

directions given by him?
(b) The minutes of proceedings containing the directions
issued by him from time to time shall be placed on record
along with the report.
(c) Current status of the movable and immovable assets of
Mr. DMP, including his bank accounts, fixed deposits,
shares and any other investments.
(d) Any further documents/actions which may be required in
order to safeguard the moveable and immovable assets of
Mr. DMP.
(iii) Since the probate of the alleged Will of Mr. DMP has now been
filed and there is a need to secure all the moveable and
immoveable assets of Mr. DMP, the status quo order passed
previously shall continue. No withdrawals/transfers shall be
made from any of the bank accounts of Mr. DMP, including the
fixed deposit accounts and other investments/holdings of Mr.
DMP, held solely by him or in a joint account with any other
person. However, the inward remittance into these accounts
shall continue as before, including the interest accrued on the
various deposits, income from investments or any other sources,
dividends received from various companies, etc. Upon such
remittances being made or received into these accounts, the
concerned parties/banks shall give an intimation to the Sole
Guardian about the same.
(iv) The status quo order which was earlier granted in respect of the

W.P.(C) 1271/2020 Page 18 of 23

 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU
JOSHI
Signing Date:07.01.2022 16:35:50

immovable properties of Mr. DMP, on 4th June, 2021, shall

continue. No party shall take any action to create any third-
party interest in the said properties/assets or diminish the same
in any manner. The said order was passed in the following
terms:
“6. There are two accounts of the DMP, having
substantial amounts, in which Ms. Uma Devi is
stated to be a joint account holder and a co-
signatory. On a query from the Court as to since
when Mrs. Uma Devi is a joint account holder Mr.
Abhinav Rao, ld. counsel has fairly submitted to the
Court that she has been a joint account holder
since November 2019. The Court notes that by
November 2019, the DMP had already been
detected with `fronto- temporal dementia’, in writ
proceedings before the Ld. Division Bench of this
Court being W.P.(CRL) 2255/2019 R.S. v. State &
Ors as noted in the judgment dated 20th
September, 2019.
7. In this background, since the DMP’s assets
(movable and immovable) are substantial and run
into thousands of crores, without listing out the
same, it is deemed appropriate to accept the
voluntary statement made by Ms. Kanchana Rai
and Ms. Uma Devi in reply to the application being
CM 4396/2020 where it is stated as under:
“That, in view of the fact that the answering
Respondent and the Respondent No.5 have
voluntarily offered to maintain status-quo till the
disposal of the present writ petition, the present
Application seeking maintaining of status-quo of
DMPs property has become infructuous.”
Thus, it is directed that status quo shall be
maintained in respect of all moveable and
immoveable assets of the DMP by both Mrs. Uma
Devi and Ms. Kanchana Rai/her family.

W.P.(C) 1271/2020 Page 19 of 23

 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU
JOSHI
Signing Date:07.01.2022 16:35:50

…
17. In so far as the DMP’s bank accounts are
concerned, the current position is that he is
suffering from dementia and is unable to operate
his own bank accounts. From the submissions
made, it appears that Ms. Uma Devi and the
Secretary of the DMP are operating his accounts
or spending therefrom. Accordingly, the status quo,
as volunteered above, shall apply to all the bank
accounts of the DMP. If any amounts are
withdrawn, spent or transferred from the accounts
of the DMP for living needs and other expenses, a
statement of such amounts and expenses incurred
every month along with the bank statements of the
bank accounts of the DMP shall be filed, for the
perusal of the Court in a sealed cover.”

The above direction to maintain status quo shall now be binding

upon all the parties, including Mr. US and his family who has
been heard as an Intervenor, in this petition. They shall also not
permit any third party to deal with the estate of Mr. DMP in any
manner whatsoever, without prior permission of the Sole
Guardian.
(v) Any payments which are to be made to any authorities
including the tax authorities, other governmental bodies, or
other expenditure including the residence expenditure, or the
expenditure of Mrs. SD’s residence, or approved expenditure by
Justice Endlaw (Retd.), including for conduct of all final rites as
per customs and traditions, shall be made only after the prior
approval of the Sole Guardian.
(vi) All banks, financial institutions, companies and other
authorities shall ensure strict compliance of today’s directions.

W.P.(C) 1271/2020 Page 20 of 23

 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU
JOSHI
Signing Date:07.01.2022 16:35:50

No amounts/assets shall be released to/transferred by any of the

parties or any third party, without the prior approval of the Sole
Guardian. Similarly, no account of Mr. DMP shall be permitted
to be operated by any persons, without the prior approval of the
Sole Guardian, which is to be obtained in respect of each such
transaction.
(vii) The Sole guardian may issue directions to any person to ensure
compliance of these directions.
(viii) This Court also notes that the remuneration of Justice Endlaw
(Retd.) had been fixed in terms of the order dated 8th
September, 2021, confirmed by the order dated 29th October,
2021 in the following terms:
“274. Remuneration of the Supervising Guardian -
Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw (Retd.) is fixed in terms
of order dated 8th September, 2021 in the following
terms:
“iii) The interim guardian shall be paid
an honorarium of Rs.3 lakhs per month
exclusive of secretarial, travelling and
other expenses which shall be borne
from the DMP’s accounts.

iv) The interim guardian may appoint a

Manager to assist him in carrying out
his functions and also fix a reasonable
remuneration of the said Manager.””

23. Considering the quantum of work and the nature of the

communications and the situations that the Sole Guardian is required to deal
with, the remuneration of the Sole Guardian is increased to Rs.5 lakhs per
month exclusive of secretarial, travelling and other expenses which shall be

W.P.(C) 1271/2020 Page 21 of 23

 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU
JOSHI
Signing Date:07.01.2022 16:35:50

borne from Mr. DMP’s estate.

24. Coming to the other specific prayers in the present application, this
Court is of the prima facie opinion that the relief of partition sought through
prayer (b) would not be maintainable in these proceedings. Insofar as prayer
(a) is concerned, since the Guardianship Committee and the Supervising
Guardian were already taking care of the estate of Mr. DMP under the
orders passed by this Court, till the final report of Justice Endlaw (Retd.) is
received, the above directions are issued in order to ensure that there is no
third-party interest that is created in the immovable properties and there is
no diminution of the assets of Mr. DMP.
25. It is clarified that the above directions are being issued in order to
safeguard the assets of Mr. DMP and shall be subject to any directions
which may be passed by the Court dealing with the testamentary case being
TEST. CAS. 1/2022 or in any other proceedings concerning Mr. DMP’s
estate. Any further directions, if required shall be considered, post the
receipt of the report of Justice Endlaw (Retd.) and post the filing of the
replies to the present application by the Respondents.
26. Lastly, this Court notes that the South Delhi Municipal Corporation
(hereinafter “SDMC”) is stated to have issued a death certificate of Mr.
DMP, dated 3rd January, 2022, annexed to the present application, naming
his spouse as Ms. UD. The order of this Court dated 29th October, 2021,
especially at paragraphs 2 to 5, clearly recognizes Mrs. SD as Mr. DMP’s
wife. Accordingly, the SDMC shall file an affidavit as to the circumstances
that led to the issuance of this certificate dated 3rd January, 2022. The
SDMC shall ensure that the death certificate is correctly issued reflecting the
name of `Mrs. Satula Devi’ as the wife of Mr. DMP, within 2 weeks. This

W.P.(C) 1271/2020 Page 22 of 23

 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU
JOSHI
Signing Date:07.01.2022 16:35:50

shall however be without prejudice to Ms. UD’s stand that she is entitled to
enjoy the status of the wife of Mr. DMP. Accordingly, Mr. Sanjeev Sagar,
ld. Standing Counsel for SDMC, has appeared before the Court upon
intimation, and has agreed to ensure rectification of this certificate and
compliance by the SDMC of today’s order. Details, if any required, of Mrs.
SD to ensure the rectification of the death certificate, shall be provided by
ld. Counsel for the Petitioner, to the Ld. Standing Counsel for SDMC within
2 days. Copy of this petition along with the application be served by Mrs.
SD on Mr. Sanjeev Sagar as well.
27. Reply to the application be filed in two weeks. Rejoinder to the same
be filed by one week before the next date of hearing.
28. List for hearing, on 24th February, 2022. This shall be treated as a
part-heard matter.
29. Copy of this order be communicated immediately by the Registrar
(Writs) of this Court to the Sole Guardian, i.e., Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
(Retd.), Mr. Joy Tirkey, DCP (Crime Branch) and Mr. Sanjeev Sagar, ld.
Standing Counsel, SDMC, for ensuring compliance.
30. The digitally signed copy of this order, duly uploaded on the official
website of the Delhi High Court, www.delhihighcourt.nic.in, shall be treated
as the certified copy of the order for the purpose of ensuring compliance. No
physical copy of orders shall be insisted by any authority/entity or litigant.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
JANUARY 6, 2022/dk/Rahul/MS

W.P.(C) 1271/2020 Page 23 of 23