The Allahabad High Court has sought responses from the Union Government and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) on whether legislation or regulatory guidelines can be introduced to provide a mechanism for dependants to access money lying in the bank accounts of patients in a comatose state.

A bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Garima Prashad observed that dependants of a person in a coma become "absolutely remediless" as they may lack the necessary funds to meet hospital expenses and manage household needs.

"It is indeed a matter of concern that a person who passes in state of Coma, the dependents become absolutely remediless in a sense that they do not have necessary fund and source of finances and to not only take care of the patient by meeting the expenses of the hospital but even to manage the house holds", the Court observed.

The Court sought the responses while hearing a petition filed by Parveen Jahan, in which the account holder, who had been in a comatose state, had died.

The Court was also concerned with implementing the Allahabad High Court's earlier judgment in Uma Mittal and Others v. Union of India and Others, wherein the Central Government was directed to enact appropriate legislation on the appointment of a guardian for a person lying in a vegetative state.

The Court observed that legislation enacted by the competent legislature, or guidelines issued by the RBI regulating banks, may be necessary to establish a mechanism through which money lying in the savings bank accounts of coma patients can be released in favour of their dependants.

"In the circumstances, therefore, some sort of legislation from the competent legislature or even the guidelines necessary from the Reserve Bank of India regulating the nationalized bank and subsidiary banks to the nationalized banks for providing necessary mechanism as to how the money lying in the savings bank account of such patients can be released in favour of the dependents," the Court stated.

It directed the Central Government and the RBI to file affidavits setting out their respective positions, including whether they have any proposals or have framed guidelines to address such special circumstances requiring urgent action.

The petitioner was directed to implead the RBI through its Executive Director (Banking Regulation) and the Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, as respondents.

The bench also observed that the Uttar Pradesh Government could consider implementing the guidelines framed by the Kerala High Court in Shobha Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala, which were referred to in the Uma Mittal judgment.

The Court asked the Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh to come forward with a "concrete and substantial" solution at the State level. It warned that if he failed to place such a solution, he would have to appear personally before the Court on the next date.

The bench further cautioned that if the RBI failed to file its affidavits, it could summon the responsible officers.

Regarding the present case, the Court left it open to the petitioner to apply for succession to obtain the amount lying in the deceased account holder's savings bank account. The matter has been listed for further hearing on November 6.