A single-judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising Justice G. R. Swaminathan noted that the petitioner's sister has a 60% disability, and the materials in the file showed that she has a benchmark disability. As the concept of severe disability had been dropped in the 2016 Act, that is, a disability that was more than 80% of their normal capacity, a case was being made to appoint her brother as the legal guardian.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner's sister was given a 60% score on the IDEAS Scale, and the Regional Medical Board had verified that she is reliant on her family members for her daily needs and is unable to support herself independently. She had received a similar certificate from the District Differently Abled Welfare Officer in Madurai. The Tahsildar of the relevant district had attested to her status as a spinster, her mental illness, and the petitioner's care. However, the petitioner's request to name him as her legal guardian was denied because Act 44 of 1999 does not include language allowing for the appointment of a legal guardian for someone with a mental disorder.
Consequently, a writ petition was filed under Article 226 to seek the issue of a Certiorarified Mandamus to call for records of the challenged order dated 29.02.2022 by the 2nd respondent, quash the same and direct the respondent to appoint the petitioner as the lawful guardian for G. Babu.
Observations of the Court:
According to the court, the expression "person suffering from multiple disabilities" in Section 2(j) of the National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation, and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999 must be interpreted to mean "a person with benchmark disability" as defined in Section 2(r) of the 2016 Act, that refers to it refers to a person who has at least 40% of that disability when a disability isn't quantifiably defined. The phrase "serious disability" is not used in the 2016 Act. The Court cited the ruling by the Apex Court in Vikash Kumar v. UPSC. This would make it possible for the Local Level Committee established by Central 44 of 1999 to handle guardianship appointments for people with any form of disability. In order to facilitate easier and speedier access to justice, the Local Level Committee established under Central 44 of 1999 should deal with cases of other disabilities and congenital conditions such as autism, cerebral palsy, and mental retardation.
The Court noted that "a person with baseline disability", as defined under Section 2(r) of the 2016 Act, must be understood to mean "a person suffering from numerous disabilities", as stated in Section 2(j) of the 1999 Act, as doing so would make it possible for the Local Level Committee established under Central 44 of 1999 to handle situations involving the appointment of guardians for people with any impairment.
According to the circumstances, the Court noted that the petitioner's sister has a 60% disability, and the materials in the file show that she has a benchmark disability. Although the definition in the 1999 Act stated that a person would only fall into the severe category if they had a disability that was more than 80% of their normal capacity, the Court noted that a case had been made for appointing a guardian because the concept of severe disability had been dropped in the 2016 Act.
Decision:
The Court overturned the impugned order and ordered that the petitioner be named the sister's guardian.
Case Title: G. Babu v The District Collector & Ors.
Coram: J. G. R. Swaminathan
Case No: WP(MD)No.18042 of 2022
Advocates for Petitioner: Mr. S. Muniyandi
Advocate for Respondent: Mr K. Balasubramanian
Read Order;
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
0 Comments