S/L 6 24.08.2026 Court. No. 25 Sourav WPA 25894 of 2025 Smt. Nibedita Dutta Chaudhuri (Basu) Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Rudraksha Chattopadhyay … for the petitioner. Mr. Dibasish Basu, Ld. AGP Ms. Jayita Dhar Chakraborty Mr. Joy Ranjan Dhar … for the State. 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ application praying for an order for appointing the petitioner as legal guardian of her disabled brother namely, Gautam Kumar Bose who is suffering from chronic schizophrenia with 65% benchmark disability. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the brother of the petitioner is suffering from chronic schizophrenia. The Medical Board has examined the brother of the petitioner and found that he is suffering from chronic schizophrenia with 65% temporary disability in relation to his Brain as per the guidelines (Guidelines for the purpose of assessing the extent of specified disability in a person included under RPwD Act, 2016 notified by Government of India vide S.O. 1338 (E) dated 12.03.2024). The said certificate was issued on January 8, 2025 for 9 years 11 months and is valid till December 22, 2034. 3. The brother of the petitioner is suffering from chronic schizophrenia and is not able to take his decision, the petitioner has made an application to the District Magistrate as well as Social Welfare Officer for 2 appointment of the petitioner as guardian of her brother. On receipt of the said application submitted by the petitioner, the Social Welfare Officer, Nadia informed the petitioner to obtain legal guardianship certificate for taking further action. On receipt of the said reply from the Social Welfare Officer, Nadia, the petitioner has again made a representation to the District Magistrate as well as the Social Welfare Officer intimating that the petitioner is assessed the online portal of the National Trust to register her application for appointment as legal guardian of her disabled brother but the portal is not accepting the application of the petitioner and, as such, the petitioner is unable to process due to invalid UDID number or invalid date of birth or invalid disability percentage is less than 40% but the petitioner has submitted correct date of birth and the disability certificate which shows that the board of doctors have provided the certificate of disability with 65%, thus, the petitioner has filed the present writ application. 4. The procedure for appointment of guardianship, duties of the guardian and the guardian to furnish inventory and annual accounts are prescribed under Sections 14, 15 and 16 of the National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999. The petitioner has referred Section 16 of the Act of 1999 and submits that as per the said Act, the petitioner is ready and willing to deliver the authority who will appoint the petitioner, an inventory of immovable property belongs to his brother who is suffering from chronic schizophrenia and she will comply 3 all the directions and submit the accounts before the concerned authority. 5. The petitioner has referred Clause 3 of Schedule of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 wherein the mental behaviour has been defined. As per the said provision, “mental illness” means a substantial disorder of thinking, mood, perception, orientation or memory that grossly impairs judgment, behaviour, capacity to recognise reality or ability to meet the ordinary demands of life, but does not include retardation which is a condition of arrested or incomplete development of mind of a person, specially characterised by subnormality of intelligence. 6. He further referred Section 2(i) of the PWD Act, 1995. The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 wherein the disability has been mentioned. As per Section 2(i) of the said Act, “Disability Means” – blindness, low vision, leprosy-cured, hearing impairment, loco motor disability, mental retardation and mental illness. By referring the said provision, the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is duly covered under Section 2(i)(vii) i.e., mental illness. 7. He submits that as per Section 2(r) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, “person with benchmark disability” – means a person with not less than forty per cent of a specified disability where specified disability has not been defined in measurable terms and includes a person with disability where specified disability has been defined in measurable 4 terms, as certified by the certifying authority. Section 2(s) provides “persons with disability” – means a person with long term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairment which, in interaction with barriers, hinders his full and effective participation in society equally with others. By referring the above said provisions, the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is totally covered under the definition of mental disability and Section 2(r) with regard to the persons with benchmark disability. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment in the case of G. Babu Vs. District Collector and Others reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Madras 568 and submits that in the said case the Madras High Court has held that: “person suffering from multiple disability occurring in Section 2(j) of the 1999 Act must be understood to mean „a person with benchmark disability‟ as defined in Section 2(r) of the 2016 Act. Adopting such an approach would enable the Local Level Committee to deal with cases of appointment of guardian for persons suffering from any kind of disability. The Local Level Committee constituted under Central 44 of 1999 should not confine themselves to cases of congenital conditions such as autism, cerebral palsy and mental retardation alone. They should also deal with other disabilities. The 1999 Act should be applied in the light of the new 2016 RPwD Act and not in the light of the repealed 1995 Act. This is more so because it is easier to secure appointment of guardianship under the 1999 Act. Approaching the High Court and getting orders expeditiously may not 5 always be possible. If the Local Level Committee under the 1999 Act has the power to appoint guardian, that would certainly enable easier and quicker access to justice.” 9. By referring the said judgment, the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is duly covered with the said judgment. The brother of the petitioner is suffering from chronic schizophrenia with 65 per cent disability. The Board of Doctors have provided the disability certificate for 9 years and 11 months which is valid upto 22.12.2034. In spite of request made to the authorities, the authorities have not appointed the petitioner as guardian only directed the petitioner to apply for legal guardianship through online. The online portal is not accepting the request of the petitioner. The chronic schizophrenia which the brother of the petitioner is suffering is covered under Section 2(j) of 1999 Act and the Clause 3 of the Schedule of the Act of 2016 wherein the mental illness is defined. 10. The chronic schizophrenia has not been defined in any of the Act with regard to the disability but Clause 3 of the Schedule of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 defines the mental illness. Sections 2(r) and 2(s) of the said Act also define the persons of the benchmark disability and the persons with disability. The Madras High Court in the judgment of G. Babu (sura) has considered the said provisions and has held that adopting such an approach would enable the Local Level Committee to deal with cases of appointment of guardian for persons suffering from any kind of disability. The Local Level Committee constituted under Clause 44 of 6 Act of 1999 should not confine themselves to cases of congenital conditions such as autism, cerebral palsy and mental retardation alone. They should also deal with other disabilities. The 1999 Act should be applied in the light of the new 2016 RPwD Act and not in the light of the repealed 1995 Act. 11. This Court is also of the view that if the brother of the petitioner is suffering from chronic schizophrenia with 65 per cent disability, the authority cannot deny for appointment of the petitioner as guardianship of her brother who is suffering from chronic schizophrenia with 65 per cent disability. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent no. 2 to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner dated September 8, 2025 after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to pass appropriate order for appointing the petitioner as legal guardian of her brother who is suffering from chronic schizophrenia having 65 per cent disability by considering the certificate issued by the Board of Doctors within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 12. WPA 25894 of 2025 is disposed of. 13. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all the necessary formalities. (Krishna Rao, J.)