The Kerala High Court has ruled that authorities cannot reject a guardianship application merely by stating that Down Syndrome is not covered under the National Trust Act. Setting aside an order passed by the competent authority in Kottayam, the court directed a fresh consideration of a father's request to be appointed guardian of his adult daughter who has Down Syndrome and an assessed intellectual disability of 55%.
Background of the Case
The petitioner approached the court after his application seeking guardianship of his daughter was rejected by the District Collector. According to the petition, the daughter, born in 2004, has Down Syndrome and requires continuous care and protection. Medical and disability certificates placed before the authorities showed that she had a permanent intellectual disability assessed at 55%.
The father sought appointment as guardian under the National Trust for the Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999. However, the application was rejected on the ground that Down Syndrome did not fall within the categories of disabilities recognized under the Act.
The daughter and her mother opposed the petition, arguing that the daughter had attained majority and was entitled to decide where she wished to live. They also contested the father's claims and urged dismissal of the case.
Examining the statutory framework, Justice C.S. Dias noted that the Act recognizes intellectual disabilities and provides a mechanism for appointment of guardians where required. The court also referred to government guidelines and medical literature discussing Down Syndrome and its association with intellectual disability.
The court observed that authoritative materials showed Down Syndrome to be a genetic condition commonly associated with intellectual disability and developmental delays. It further noted that the disability certificates issued by competent authorities clearly recorded that the daughter had a 55% intellectual disability attributable to Down Syndrome.
“The conclusion arrived at by the 1st respondent that Down Syndrome does not fall within the purview of the Act seems to be erroneous,” the bench observed.
The High Court also found fault with the manner in which the application had been rejected. The judge noted that the authority had not followed the procedure prescribed under the Act, Rules and Regulations.
According to the court, the law requires scrutiny of the application, collection of relevant materials, assessment of the person with disability and consideration of whether guardianship is necessary. None of these steps appeared to have been undertaken before the application was rejected.
The bench held that the decision-making process suffered from non-application of mind and errors of law and fact.
Allowing the writ petition, the Kerala High Court quashed the communication rejecting the father's application. The court directed the competent authority to reconsider the guardianship request in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the daughter and her mother.
The court ordered that the exercise be completed within three months from the date of receipt of the judgment, without being influenced by observations made in the ruling.
