In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court addressed the scope of guardianship under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016, emphasizing that the Act provides only for limited guardianship and does not recognize the concept of permanent guardianship for individuals with mental disabilities.
Case Background
The petitioner, a wife seeking to be declared the permanent legal guardian of her husband suffering from a 45% permanent disability due to bipolar affective disorder, approached the court after the expiration of her limited guardianship appointment. She faced challenges as 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, indicated that there was no provision under the Act to appoint a legal guardian for a person with a mental disability. This led to the petitioner's contention that no existing law enables the appointment of a permanent legal guardian for individuals with mental disabilities.
Court's Analysis
Justice C.S. Dias, presiding over the case, delved into the provisions of the RPwD Act, 2016. The court observed that the Act allows for the appointment of a limited guardian by the District Court or a designated authority. A limited guardianship is designed to operate based on mutual understanding and trust between the guardian and the person with a disability, tailored for specific purposes or situations, or to assist in particular decisions in accordance with the will of the person with a disability.
The court noted, "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." This framework ensures that the autonomy and preferences of individuals with disabilities are respected, aligning with the principles of the Act.
Legislative Intent
The judgment highlighted that the Parliament, in its wisdom, has only permitted limited guardianship and not permanent guardianship under the RPwD Act. The court emphasized that the concept of permanent guardianship is alien to the Act, reflecting a legislative intent to promote autonomy and prevent potential misuse or overreach that could arise from permanent guardianship arrangements.
Implications of the Ruling
This ruling underscores the importance of limited guardianship as a mechanism to support individuals with mental disabilities in making decisions, rather than substituting their decision-making capacity entirely. It reinforces the legislative shift towards recognizing the rights and autonomy of persons with disabilities, ensuring that guardianship arrangements are flexible, purpose-specific, and subject to periodic review.
The court's decision also brings to light the existing gaps in the legal framework concerning guardianship for persons with mental disabilities. While the RPwD Act provides for limited guardianship, there is an absence of provisions for permanent guardianship, which may be necessary in certain cases where individuals are unable to make decisions over an extended period. This highlights a potential area for legislative review to address situations where long-term guardianship may be in the best interest of the person with a disability, while still safeguarding their rights and autonomy.
Conclusion
The Kerala High Court's ruling clarifies that under the current legal framework, only limited guardianship is permissible for persons with mental disabilities, as envisaged by the RPwD Act, 2016. This decision reinforces the Act's emphasis on supporting autonomy and decision-making capabilities of individuals with disabilities, ensuring that guardianship is implemented in a manner that respects their rights and dignity.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.