⚖️Case Study: Abootty K.A. v. Kolangottil Pathumma & Ors.

📌Case Details:

Case Number: FAO No. 32 of 2023 (Against the order dated 18.07.2022 in O.P. of District Court, Wayanad)
Date of Judgment: October 20, 2023
Coram: The Honourable Mr. Justice Basant Balaji
Amicus Curiae: Sri. Ramkumar Nambiar
Counsel for Appellant: Advs. P.C. Chacko (Parathanam) and Asha P. Kuriakose
Counsel for Respondents: Advs. Noushad, Ligey Antony (R1 to R16), Sri. Gireesh Kumar (CGC), and GP Smt. K.B. Sony

The appellant, Abootty K.A., filed a petition under Section 14 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, before the District Court, Wayanad.
The petition sought to appoint the appellant as the guardian of the person and property of his 68-year-old brother, Sulaiman, who suffers from schizophrenia with 40% permanent disability as certified by the Medical Board of the District Hospital, Mananthavadi.
The petition additionally prayed for permission to execute a ratification/consent deed regarding petition schedule properties originally partitioned via Partition Deed No. 1627/2006.
The District Court returned the petition on July 18, 2022, holding that it lacked jurisdiction because the Government of Kerala designated the Sub-Divisional Magistrate as the authority for granting limited guardianship under SRO No. 609/2020.
Challenging this return of the petition, the appellant preferred the First Appeal from Orders (FAO) before the High Court of Kerala.

Whether the District Court possesses jurisdiction under Section 14 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, to entertain a petition for the appointment of a limited guardian.
Whether the designation of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under an executive notification excludes or ousts the concurrent jurisdiction of the District Court.

Appellant’s Contention: The District Judge erred in interpreting Section 14 and the Kerala Rules (SRO No. 262/2020), as Rule 4 explicitly provides that either a District Court or the designated authority can entertain such an application.
State and Central Government Counsel’s Contention: The learned Government Pleader (Smt. K.B. Sony) and Central Government Counsel (Sri. Girish Kumar) submitted that Section 14(1) of the Act establishes concurrent jurisdiction for both the District Court and the designated authority, giving the litigant the option to choose between them.

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016:
- Section 14: Governance of limited guardianship and total support.
- Section 2(s): Definition of a “person with disability”.
Rules & Notifications:
- SRO No. 609/2020 (dated 23.09.2020): Government of Kerala notification designating the Sub-Divisional Magistrate as the authority for granting limited guardianship.
- Kerala Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2020 (SRO No. 262/2020):
  - Rule 4: Empowers the “designated authority/Court” to grant limited guardianship and establishes the District Collector as the appellate authority.
  - Rule 7: Outlines matters to be considered by the court or designated authority.
  - Rule 8: Details qualifications required for a person to be appointed as a limited guardian.
Judicial Precedent:
- 2021 (3) KHC 304 (cited by the appellant’s counsel during initial proceedings).

Upon reading Section 14(1) alongside Rules 4, 7, and 8 of the Kerala Rules, the High Court observed that the statutory framework repeatedly references both the “District Court or the designated authority”.
The Court noted that SRO No. 609/2020 merely designated the Sub-Divisional Magistrate as an authority and did not strip the District Court of its statutory jurisdiction.
The legislature deliberately crafted Section 14 to confer concurrent jurisdiction, granting litigants the freedom to choose their preferred forum.
Consequently, the District Judge committed a clear error of law in returning the petition for want of jurisdiction.

The appeal was allowed and the order of the District Court dated July 18, 2022, was set aside.
The High Court ruled that a petition under Section 14(1) of the Act is fully maintainable before the District Court, and a party may approach either the District Court or the designated authority.
The Registry was directed to return the original petition to the appellant for re-presentation before the proper District Court, with the Court clarifying that it expressed no opinion on the merits of the case.

Concurrent Jurisdiction: Section 14 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, ensures that both District Courts and State-designated authorities (such as Sub-Divisional Magistrates) possess concurrent jurisdiction.
Litigant Autonomy: Applicants seeking guardianship are not restricted solely to executive forums and retain the absolute option to approach the District Judiciary.
Harmonious Construction: Executive notifications designating administrative authorities supplement rather than repeal or exclude concurrent judicial remedies provided under central legislation and framed rules.

Related Posts