The counsel submits that parents of the petitioner do not agree for her being cryonically

preserved and thereby the stand of the parents does not serve the best interest of the
petitioner . The counsel for the petitioner thus submits that in the peculiar facts of the
present case, it would be just and proper to invoke the ‘parens patriae’ doctrine. The
Parens Patriae theory is the obligation of the State to protect and take into custody the
rights and privileges of its citizens for discharging its obligations 1.

The counsel seeks support from the judgment of Apex court 2 wherein it was observed that
the concept of parens patriae recognises the State as protector of its citizens as parents
particularly when citizens are not in a position to protect themselves. The Preamble to the
Constitution, read with the DPSP under Articles 38, 39 and 39A enjoins the state to take all
protective measures to which a social welfare state is committed 3.

The counsel humbly submits that the doctrine was established as an instrument for the
children, when at risk, to have government act as their parent and take decisions for their
wellness. The counsel submits that the petitioner is entitled to the principle of parens patriae
and the State as her guardian treating the welfare of Sarah as the paramount concern.

1
Charan Lal Sahu v.UOI AIR1990Sc1480
2
Gaurav Kumar Bansal v. UOI,(2015)2SCC130
3
Ibid