The Disabilities Act permits only limited guardianship for persons with disabilities, rejecting the notion of permanent guardianship.

JUDGMENT

The 1 petitioner is the wife of the 2nd petitioner.  The 2nd petitioner is suffering from 45% permanent nd disability due to bipolar affective disorder. The 2nd petitioner’s father, M.G.Sarangapani, worked as a Subedar with the Corps of EME in the Indian Army. M.G.Sarangapani received pension till his death on 15.01.2020. The 2nd petitioner's mother had pre- deceased his father. After the death of the 2nd petitioner's father, he applied for family pension. By Ext.P8 letter, the 7 ^th respondent directed the 2nd petitioner to submit certain documents, including a legal guardianship certificate. Consequently, by Exts.P14 and P15 orders, the 1st petitioner was  appointed as the limited guardian of the 2nd petitioner. After the expiry of the period in Ext.P15 order, the petitioners filed an application before 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 (‘National Trust Act’, in short), 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. There is no enactment in the country that enables the appointment of a permanent legal guardian for a person with mental disability. Hence, this Court may declare the 1 petitioner as the permanent legal st guardian of the 2 petitioner and direct the nd respondents 5 to 7 to disburse the family pension.

2. Heard: the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, the learned Government Pleader, the learned Standing Counsel for the 9th respondent and the learned  Amicus Curiae.

3. Exts.P2, P4, and P5 medical certificates prove that the 2nd petitioner is suffering from 45% permanent disability due to bipolar affective disorder.

4. By Ext.P14 order, the 1st  petitioner was appointed as the limited guardian of the 2nd petitioner  for three months from 26.05.2023 under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (‘Disabilities Act’, for brevity) by the designated Authority. Subsequently, by Ext.P15 order, the 1 petitioner was re-appointed as st the limited guardian of the 2nd petitioner for nine months from 06.04.2024 by the same Authority.

5. After the expiry of the period in the Ext.P15 order, the petitioners applied to the Local Level Committee to appoint the 1st petitioner as the guardian of the 2nd petitioner under the National Trust Act, which was rejected by the impugned Ext.P16 order.

6. The bone of contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that there is no law which enables the appointment of a permanent legal guardian for a person with a mental disability.

7. In the above context, it is pertinent to refer to Section 2(s) of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which reads as follows:

“person with disability†means a person with long term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairment which , in interaction with barriers, hinders his full and effective participation in society equally with others;â€

(highlighted)

8. It is also relevant to refer to Section 14 of the Disabilities Act, which reads as follows;

“14. Provision for guardianship.—

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, on and from the date of commencement of this Act, where a district court or any designated authority, as notified by the State Government, finds that a person with disability, who had been provided adequate and appropriate support but is unable to take legally binding decisions, may be provided further support of a limited guardian to take legally binding decisions on his behalf in consultation