[S.14 Disabilities Act] District Court And Designated Authority Have Concurrent Jurisdiction To Grant Limited Guardianship: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has held that both the District Court as well as the designated authority notified by the State Government have concurrent jurisdiction to consider the petition for the appointment of limited guardian under Section 14(1) of the Rights Of Persons With Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereafter, the Act).Justice Basant Balaji relied upon Section 14(1) of the Act and the rules...
The Kerala High Court has held that both the District Court as well as the designated authority notified by the State Government have concurrent jurisdiction to consider the petition for the appointment of limited guardian under Section 14(1) of the Rights Of Persons With Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereafter, the Act).
Justice Basant Balaji relied upon Section 14(1) of the Act and the rules framed thereunder to state that both the District Court and the Designated Authority have concurrent jurisdiction for granting limited guardianship.
“A combined reading of Section 14 (1) coupled with Rules 4, 7 and 8 of the Kerala Rules, it is amply clear that the District Court or the designated authority notified by the State Government has concurrent jurisdiction to entertain a petition or appointment of a limited guardian of person who is coming under the definition of ‘person with disability’ under Section 2(s) of the Act.”
Section 14 of the Act deals with the appointment of limited guardian for persons with disability and that such power was vested with the District Court or designated authority notified by the State Government.
The Court further relied upon Rules 4, 7 and 8 of the Kerala Rules framed under the Act to state that both the Court as well as the designated authority were empowered to grant limited guardianship. Rule 4 states that ‘designated authority/Court’ can grant limited guardianship. Rule 7 provides that ‘court or the designated authority’ has the concurrent jurisdiction to scrutinize documents on the application submitted for the appointment of limited guardian. Rule 8 states that ‘District Court or the designated authority’ can consider the qualifications of persons who can be appointed as limited guardians.
The factual matrix was that the appellant approached the District for appointing him as the guardian of his brother and property. His brother was a mentally disabled person suffering from Sehizo-Phrenia and the medical board has also issued a certificate of disability showing 40% permanent disability. The District Judge returned the petition stating that it was not the designated authority under Section 14 (1) of the Act for granting limited guardianship. The order of the District Judge added that the designated authority for granting limited guardianship was the Sub-divisional magistrate as per gazette notification dated September 23, 2020. This order has been challenged before the High Court.
On analysing Section 14 (1), the court noted thus:
“A reading of clause (1) would make it clear that from the date of commencement of this Act, where a District Court or a designated authority, as notified by the State Government, finds a person with disability, who had been provided adequate and appropriate support but unable to take legally binding decisions, may be provided with the support of a limited guardian. The proviso also clarifies that the District Court or the designated authority, as the case may be, may grant total support to the person with disability.”
It further referred to the gazette notification issued by the State Government and noted that the government order designated the Sub-Divisional Magistrate as the authority for granting limited guardianship.
Amicus Curiae, V. Ramkumar Nambiar informed the Court that both the District Court as well as the designating authority designated by the State Government has concurrent jurisdiction for granting limited partnership under Section 14 (1) of the Act. Central Government Counsel Gireesh Kumar and Government Pleader K.B. Sony submitted before the Court that parties were given a choice under Section 14(1) of the Act to approach either the jurisdiction of the District Court or the designated authority.
On the above observations, the Court held that a person who intends to file the application for limited guardianship can choose either the District Court or the Designated Authority to file an application under Section 14 (1) for appointing limited guardian.
Counsel for the appellant: Advocates P.C.Chacko (Parathanam), Asha P.Kuriakose
Counsel for the respondents: Advocates P.C Chacko
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 661
Case title: Abootty K.A. v Kolangottil Pathumma
Case number: FAO NO. 32 OF 2023