Concept Of Permanent Guardianship Alien To Disabilities Act; Can Seek Extension Of Limited Guardianship For Person With Mental Disability: Kerala HC
The Kerala High Court was considering a Writ Petition filed by a woman whose husband has been suffering from 45% permanent disability due to bipolar affective disorder.
Justice CS Dias, Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court granted liberty to the wife of a man suffering from mental disability to apply for an extension of limited guardianship and clarified that the Parliament has only permitted limited guardianship and not permanent guardianship.
The High Court was considering a Writ Petition filed by a woman whose husband has been suffering from 45% permanent disability due to bipolar affective disorder.
The Single Bench of Justice C.S.Dias explained, “On an analysis of the scheme of the Disabilities Act, a person can only be appointed as a limited guardian because the office of guardianship operates on a mutual understanding and trust between the guardian and the person with a disability for a specific purpose or situation or to take a particular decision in accordance to the will of the person with a disability. Presumably, it is in the above context that the Parliament, in its wisdom, has only permitted limited guardianship and not permanent guardianship.”
Advocate Ananthakrishnan A. Kartha represented the Petitioners while Advocate K.Mohanakannan represented the Respondents.
Factual Background
The second petitioner has been suffering from a mental disability. His father worked as a Subedar with the Corps of EME in the Indian Army and received pension till his death. Consequently, the second peitioner’s wife-1st petitioner was appointed as the limited guardian of the 2nd petitioner. After the expiry of the period, the petitioners applied to the Local Level Committee constituted under the National Trust for the Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999 to appoint the 1st petitioner as the legal guardian of the 2nd petitioner.
However, the Committee rejected the application on the finding that there is no provision under the National Trust Act to appoint a legal guardian for a person with a disability. Hence, the plea was raised to declare the 1st petitioner as the permanent legal guardian of the 2nd petitioner and direct the respondents 5 to 7 to disburse the family pension.
Reasoning
Placing reliance upon Section 2(s) & Section 14 of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the Bench held that the District Court or the designated Authority are empowered to appoint a limited guardian for a person who is suffering from a disability as defined under Section 2(s) of the Disabilities Act, which includes mental disability.
The Bench further observed, “Therefore, the concept of permanent guardianship is alien to the Disabilities Act.Similarly, there is no provision under the National Trust Act to appoint a guardian for a person with mental illness.”
As per the Bench, the Local Level Committee had rightly rejected the petitioners' application for guardianship under the National Trust Act. “In view of the alternative statutory remedy available to the petitioners under the Disabilities Act, I am not inclined to exercise the plenary powers of this Court to declare the 1st petitioner as the permanent legal guardian of the 2nd petitioner”, it held.
The Bench further ordered that it would be up to the petitioners to either seek an extension of the limited guardianship order passed by the designated authority or to approach the District Court for a similar relief under Section 14 of the Disabilities Act.
Cause Title: Bindumol A T & Ors. v. Union Of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:1151)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates Ananthakrishnan A. Kartha, Anil D.Kartha, Mathew Devassi, Ananthasankar A. Kartha
Respondents: Advocates K.Mohanakannan, Arya A.R., V.Ramkumar Nambiar, Sathyasreepriya Easwaran, K.R.Ranjith