Kerala HC: Under S.14 Disabilities Act, District Court And Designated Authority Have Concurrent Jurisdiction To Grant Limited Guardianship

The learned Government Pleader, Smt. K.B Sony, as well as the Central Government Counsel, Sri. Girish Kumar submits that, as per Section 14 (1) of the Act, the District Court or the designated authority has concurrent jurisdiction when entertaining a petition. The party is given the option of either the jurisdiction of the District Court or the designated authority. Therefore, the legislature, in its wisdom, had drafted the section to give concurrent jurisdiction to the District Court as well as the designated authority. {Para 11}

12. 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.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

FAO No. 32 of 2023

Decided On: 20.10.2023

Abootty K.A. Vs. Kolangottil Pathumma and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Basant Balaji, J.

Citation: 2023:KER:69216, MANU/KE/3830/2023.

Print Page

Kerala HC: Parliament In Its Wisdom Permits Only Limited Not Permanent Guardianship For Mentally Disabled Person Under PwD Act

A co-joint reading of the above-extracted

provisions substantiates that the District Court or the

designated Authority are empowered to appoint a

limited guardian for a person who is suffering from a

disability as defined under Section 2(s) of the

Disabilities Act, which includes mental disability. {Para 9}

10. It is as per the provisions of the

Disabilities Act that the designated authority had

passed Exts.P14 and P15 orders.

11. 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. Presumably, it is in the above context that the

Parliament, in its wisdom, has only permitted limited

guardianship and not permanent guardianship.

Therefore, the concept of permanent guardianship is

alien to the Disabilities Act. Similarly, there is no

provision under the National Trust Act to appoint a

guardian for a person with mental illness. (Read the

decision of this Court in Latha T.B @ Latha Ravi and

others v. Union of India [2021(3) KHC 304].

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) NO.25127 OF 2024

BINDUMOL A T  Vs  UNION OF INDIA

PRESENT

 MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025.

Citation: 2025:KER:1151

Print Page

Supreme Court: The tribunal should take liberal view in assessing the compensation in a case of 100% disability, especially where there is mental disability?

This Court has observed that it has to be borne in mind that while assessing compensation in a case like the present one, the claim can be awarded only once. It was observed that the claimant cannot come back to the court for enhancement at a later stage praying that something extra has been spent. This Court further observed that courts or tribunals assessing compensation in a case of 100% disability, especially where there is mental disability also, should take a liberal view of the mater when awarding compensation. It was observed that while awarding this amount, courts are not only taking into account physical disability but also mental disability and various other factors. {Para 36}

 In the Supreme Court of India

(Before B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.)

Baby Sakshi Greola Vs  Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Another 

Civil Appeal No. of 2024 

Decided on December 11, 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 963,2024 SCC OnLine SC 3692.

Print Page