The Supreme Court has refused to entertain the Lilavati Trust Damages Plea, in which the Trust sought ₹2,500 crore in punitive and exemplary damages against former permanent trustee Rajesh Mehta and former Mumbai Police Commissioner Param Bir Singh. The Trust alleged that both men accessed, retained, and circulated confidential hospital records without authority. It also asked the Court to protect its confidential information from further misuse. A bench comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and Prasanna B. Varale declined to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution.
Origins of the Governance Dispute
The dispute arose from a prolonged governance battle within Lilavati Hospital during 2026. The Trust appointed Param Bir Singh as Executive Director in July 2024 for a five-year term. However, it removed him in February 2026, only hours after he filed a criminal complaint against members of the Trust. His complaint alleged forgery, misappropriation of trust funds, and criminal intimidation.
Around the same time, the Trust removed Rajesh Mehta as permanent trustee after the board passed a resolution against him. The Trust accused him of financial fraud, coercion, and attempts to take control of the institution. It also claimed that the Charity Commission found evidence of coercion and interference in the Trust’s functioning. Later, the Trust prepared to file a recovery suit before the Bombay High Court against Mehta, Singh, and their associates.
Both men challenged their removals. Mehta approached the Bombay High Court, while Singh moved the Charity Commissioner. The dispute escalated as both sides exchanged allegations involving fabricated records, diversion of trust funds, and financial misconduct. In April 2026, the Trust issued public notices stating that neither Mehta nor Singh had authority to represent the Trust or the hospital.
Bombay High Court Proceedings
On May 7, 2026, the Bombay High Court heard more than thirty connected matters arising from the dispute. The Court observed that allegations of financial irregularities and parallel criminal proceedings had disrupted the Trust’s functioning. It proposed appointing a Board of Administrators to oversee the institution.
The Supreme Court later declined to interfere with that order. It clarified that the High Court’s observations were only preliminary. The High Court then granted additional time for the parties to complete their pleadings.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
Before the Supreme Court, the Trust alleged that Rajesh Mehta continued to access confidential Trust, hospital, and patient records after his removal. It also claimed that Param Bir Singh unlawfully obtained or handled those records during or after serving as Executive Director.
The Trust sought ₹2,500 crore in damages against both respondents. It also requested an inquiry into the alleged misuse of confidential records. In addition, it asked the Court to impound or return confidential ICICI Bank statements filed before the Bombay High Court.
The Trust further requested an order preventing the respondents from relying on confidential documents in ongoing proceedings. It also sought directions restraining them from accessing, retaining, reproducing, or circulating confidential records unless authorized by law or a competent court.
Supreme Court’s Decision
The bench declined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 32. Instead, it granted the Trust liberty to pursue appropriate remedies before the competent legal forum.
As a result, the Court left the damages claim, the request for an inquiry, and the plea for restraining orders open for consideration by the appropriate authority.
Significance
The Lilavati Trust Damages Plea highlights the Supreme Court’s consistent approach toward Article 32 petitions involving private or commercial disputes. The Court emphasized that parties should ordinarily pursue statutory or civil remedies when those remedies remain available.
The ruling also allows the ongoing governance dispute within Lilavati Hospital to continue before the Bombay High Court and other competent authorities. Questions regarding confidential records, financial allegations, and the proposed Board of Administrators will now be resolved through the regular judicial process.
