Supreme Court Dismisses Lilavati Trust's ₹2,500 Crore Plea For Damages Against Ex-Trustee, Ex-Mumbai Police Chief

The Supreme Court has recently dismissed a writ petition filed by the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust seeking ₹2,500 crore in punitive and exemplary damages against its former permanent trustee Rajesh Mehta and former Mumbai Police Commissioner Param Bir Hoshiyar Singh, a former executive director of Lilavati Hospital and Research Centre.

The trust accused the two of unauthorised access, retention and dissemination of confidential records of Lilavati Hospital and Research Centre. It also sought several directions to protect the Trust's confidential records and prevent their alleged misuse.

A bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Prasanna B. Varale declined to entertain the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.

"We are not inclined to exercise our power under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to take recourse to the appropriate remedy in the manner known to law."

The court, however, granted the trust liberty to pursue appropriate remedies in accordance with law.

The petition stems from the long-running dispute over the management of the Lilavati Trust. On May 7, 2026, the Bombay High Court, while hearing over 30 connected matters, observed that allegations of large-scale financial irregularities and criminal proceedings between rival trustees had seriously hampered the Trust's functioning. It proposed appointing a Board of Administrators to oversee the Trust.

The Supreme Court declined to interfere with that order on May 18, 2026.

It clarified that the High Court's observations were only prima facie. The High Court later adjourned the matter after granting additional time for completion of pleadings.

Before the Supreme Court, the Trust alleged that Rajesh Mehta continued to access and use confidential Trust, hospital and patient records after ceasing to be a permanent trustee.

It further alleged that Param Bir Singh unlawfully obtained or dealt with those records. Singh served as the Executive Director of Lilavati Hospital and Research Centre in Bandra until he was removed from the post in February this year.

Seeking monetary relief, the petition stated, "Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction awarding damages of Rs. 2,500 Crores (Rupees Two Thousand Five Crores Only), including punitive and exemplary against the Respondent No. 1 and 2 jointly and severally, to the aggrieved Petitioner Trust, in such manner as may be considered just and proper by this Hon'ble Court."

Apart from damages, the Trust also sought directions for an inquiry into how the records were accessed.

Further, it sought directions to impound, seal, or return confidential ICICI Bank statements filed before the Bombay High Court. The Trust also sought to restrain the respondents from relying on what it described as confidential and manipulated documents in the pending proceedings.

The petition further sought, "Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction restraining Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from accessing, retaining, circulating, reproducing, disseminating or otherwise dealing with confidential records, patient information, financial records or other proprietary information of the Petitioner Trust and/or Lilavati Hospital and Research Centre except in accordance with law or under authority recognised by a competent court or statutory authority."

However, the Supreme Court declined to entertain the petition under Article 32 and left it open to the Trust to pursue appropriate remedies in accordance with law.

For Petitioner: Siddharth Luthra, Shoeb Alam, Sr. Advocates, Abhinav Agrawal, AOR, Piyush Bhardwaj, Shivam Sengupta, Advocates 

For Respondent: Devadatt Kamat, Nalin Kohli, Amar Dave, Senior Advocates, Utsav Trivedi, Manini Roy, Anudatt Dubey, Sanjana Rai, Tas Law, AOR, Arpit Gupta, AOR, Divya Pratap Parmar, Ankur Saigal, Monish Bhatia, Lakshmi Iyer, Naman Gupta, Vidhi Karia, Shreyasi Kunwar, AOR