Plea Seeking Appointment Of Legal Guardian For Mentally Retarded Person Maintainable Under Clause 17 Of Letters Patent Act: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has held that it can appoint a legal guardian for persons with intellectual disability under Clause 17 of the Letters Patent Act, 1865.

While appointing the petitioner, C. Raghuraman, as the legal guardian and manager of the properties of a relative with 60% mental disability, the bench of Justice Abdul Quddhose also cleared the air about the maintainability of petitions filed seeking the appointment of a legal guardian.

The confusion has been long persisting since the registry of Madras High Court was not entertaining such petitions ever since the single judge bench decision in G. Nithyanandam v. Tmt. D. Saritha & Ors (2013).

In the said case, Madras High Court had directed the petitioner to approach the District Collector under Section 14 of the National Trust for Welfare of persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999 for appointment of a legal guardian. However, the above case was filed under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and not Clause 17 of Letters Patent.

Calling the return of the petition filed under Clause 17 of Letters Patent by the registry as 'erroneous', Justice Abdul Qudhose noted his observations in the judgment with respect to G. Nithyanandam's case:

"The decision rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in G. Nithyanandam vs. Tmt. D. Saritha and others reported in 2013 3 LW 412, which is the basis for the return of the Original petition by the Registry of this Court is in the context of a petition filed under the Guardians and Wards Act and not under Clause 17 of the Letters Patent. The only reason for holding that the said petition was not maintainable by the learned Single Judge in the reported decision of G.Nithyanandam's case referred to supra was that under the Guardians and Wards Act, a person cannot be appointed as a legal guardian for a mentally retarded person..."

Before going further, it is important to note here that the repealed Mental Health Act, 1987, permitted the District Court to appoint a legal guardian under Section 53 along with the District Collector. The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 does not contain any similar provision empowering the District court for appointment of legal guardian to aid the mentally disabled.

Additionally, Section 14 of the National Trust for Welfare of persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999 which is still in force, allows the Local Level Committee to appoint a legal guardian for a mentally retarded person. With respect to Section 14 of the Act, the court placed its reliance on P.S. Sathappan (Dead) By Lrs v. Andhra Bank Ltd. & Ors, 2004 11 SCC 672, and clarified that unless and until a legislation specifically excludes the applicability of the Letters Patent, the Letters Patent is applicable.

Clause 17 of the Letters Patent Act is given below:

17. Jurisdiction as to infants and lunatics: And We do further ordain that the said High Court of Judicature at Madras shall have the like power and authority with respect to the persons and estates of infants, idiots and lunatics within the Presidency of Madras, as that which is now vested in the said High Court immediately before the publication of these presents.

In Kala Chand Chunder, v. Fatehdin & Ors (1949) and Deepa Asani and Pooja C Asani (2021), the Calcutta High Court had exercised its powers under Clause 17 of the Letters Patent and appointed a legal guardian for a mentally ill/lunatic person. Taking note of the same, the court further held as given below:

"In fact, the decision rendered supra in Deepa Asani's case...Calcutta High Court has observed that there is a vacuum ever since the repeal of the Mental Health Act, 1987 as there is no provision under the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017... Whenever there is a Legislative vacuum and there is an utmost necessity as in the instant case, the Court will have to fill up the lacuna by giving appropriate legal relief though within the parameters of the law. Since Clause 17 of Letters Patent empowers this Court to exercise lunacy jurisdiction, the hands of this Court are not tied to grant the relief as prayed for in this petition. In a case of this nature, this Court cannot be a mute spectator when there is no specific prohibition for the exercise of power under Clause 17 of the Letters Patent. "Parens Patriae" jurisdiction also empowers this Court to appoint a Legal guardian for a Mentally retarded person when there is a legislative lacuna and further there being no statutory bar.

The court, while directing the registry to entertain petitions seeking to appoint legal guardian for a mentally retarded person under Clause 17 of the Letters Patent, also made a reference to the Madras High Court single judge bench judgment in S.Annapoorni vs. K.Vijiay  (2019) wherein the same logic under Clause 17 of Letters Patent was applied even though it was a child custody matter.

On the merits of the petitioner's request to be appointed as the legal guardian of the person with intellectual disability, the court perused the oral and documental evidence and concluded that he is indeed the nearest living relative willing to act as the guardian. As the first cousin of the person with intellectual disability, the court appointed C. Raghuraman as the guardian for the person and property of the latter.

The court has also asked the newly appointed guardian to submit regular accounts in respect of the assets owned by the person with intellectual disability before the court registry every six months.

For the petitioner, Advocate Sharath Chandran appeared.

Case Title: C. Raghuraman

Case No: O.P.No.731 of 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 44

Click Here To Read/ Download Order