{"id":396854,"date":"2026-09-22T16:00:09","date_gmt":"2026-09-22T10:30:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=396854"},"modified":"2026-09-23T17:45:15","modified_gmt":"2026-09-23T12:15:15","slug":"calcutta-hcguardianship-person-with-mental-illness","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/22\/calcutta-hcguardianship-person-with-mental-illness\/","title":{"rendered":"Calcutta HC: Technical barriers cannot defeat guardianship for person with mental illness"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Calcutta High Court:<\/span> The Single Judge Bench of Krishna Rao, J., held that a person suffering from chronic schizophrenia with 65 per cent certified disability cannot be excluded from consideration for legal guardianship. Applying the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016<\/a> alongside the National Trust Act, 1999, the Court directed authorities to consider the sister’s guardianship application expeditiously.<\/p>\n

Background<\/p>\n

The case arose from the difficulties faced by the petitioner for her appointment as the legal guardian of her brother. Her brother was suffering from chronic schizophrenia to such an extent that he was unable to take decisions independently. A Medical Board had examined him and assessed him as suffering from chronic schizophrenia with 65 per cent temporary disability in relation to the brain. The assessment was made in accordance with the guidelines for assessing the extent of specified disability under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016<\/a>. The disability certificate was issued on 8 January 2025 and was stated to remain valid for a period of 9 years and 11 months, up to 22 December 2034. The petitioner had initially approached the District Magistrate and the Social Welfare Officer seeking her appointment as guardian of her brother. She contended that, because of his mental condition, her brother was unable to take important decisions for himself and therefore required a legally recognised guardian. The Social Welfare Officer, Nadia, however, informed the petitioner that she should obtain a legal guardianship certificate before further action could be taken. The petitioner thereafter made another representation to the District Magistrate and the Social Welfare Officer, explaining the difficulties she had encountered in obtaining guardianship through the online system of the National Trust.<\/p>\n

According to the petitioner, she had attempted to register her application on the online portal maintained for applications concerning guardianship. However, the portal was not accepting her application and was displaying objections relating to an allegedly invalid Unique Disability ID number, an allegedly invalid date of birth, or a disability percentage below 40 per cent. The petitioner maintained that these objections were factually incorrect because she had supplied the correct date of birth and her brother possessed a disability certificate issued by the competent Medical Board showing 65 per cent disability. Since the online system was preventing her application from being processed and the authorities concerned had not provided an effective alternative mechanism, she approached the Court filing a writ application.<\/p>\n

The petitioner relied upon the statutory framework governing guardianship under the National Trust Act, 1999. Sections 14, 15 and 16 of that legislation deal with the procedure for appointment of guardians, the duties of guardians and the requirement of maintaining an inventory and furnishing accounts in relation to the property and affairs of the person under guardianship. The petitioner specifically referred to Section 16 and submitted that she was ready and willing to comply with all statutory requirements. She expressed her willingness to provide an inventory of the immovable property belonging to her brother and to comply with the directions of the competent authority, including furnishing accounts whenever required. A significant aspect of the petitioner’s argument was the relationship between the 1999 Act and the subsequent Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016<\/a>. The petitioner referred to the definition of “mental illness” contained in Clause 3 of the Schedule to the 2016 Act. The provision recognises mental illness as a substantial disorder affecting areas such as thinking, mood, perception, orientation or memory, where the disorder grossly impairs judgment, behaviour, the ability to recognise reality, or the ability to meet the ordinary demands of life. The petitioner argued that chronic schizophrenia clearly fell within the statutory understanding of mental illness.<\/p>\n

The petitioner also referred to the earlier Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995<\/a>, particularly Section 2(i<\/span>), under which “disability” included mental illness. The petitioner’s reliance upon the earlier legislation was intended to demonstrate that mental illness had long been recognised within the statutory framework concerning persons with disabilities. However, the principal legal emphasis was placed upon the 2016 Act, which had replaced the 1995 legislation and provided a broader and more contemporary framework for recognising and protecting the rights of persons with disabilities. Section 2(r<\/span>)<\/a>, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016<\/a> was particularly important to the petitioner’s case. It defines a “person with benchmark disability” as a person with not less than 40 per cent of a specified disability, where the specified disability has not been defined in measurable terms, and includes a person with disability where the specified disability has been defined in measurable terms, as certified by the certifying authority. Section 2(s<\/span>), meanwhile, defines “person with disability” as a person with a long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairment which, in interaction with barriers, hinders the person’s full and effective participation in society equally with others.<\/p>\n

The petitioner argued that her brother satisfied the statutory requirements because he had been medically assessed with 65 per cent disability. His chronic schizophrenia constituted a mental illness within the meaning of the Schedule to the 2016 Act, while his certified disability percentage exceeded the 40 per cent threshold required for benchmark disability. Consequently, according to the petitioner, there was no legal justification for refusing to consider her appointment as his guardian merely because the online portal was not accepting her application. The petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Madras High Court in G. Babu<\/span> v. Collector<\/span>, 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 568<\/a>, which held that the proposition of the expression “multiple disabilities” under Section 2(j<\/span>), National Trust Act, 1999 should be understood in harmony with the broader definition of “person with benchmark disability” under Section 2(r<\/span>)<\/a>, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016<\/a>. The G. Babu case<\/span> recognised that the guardianship mechanism under the 1999 Act should not be confined narrowly to persons suffering only from the congenital conditions expressly mentioned in the original statutory framework, such as autism, cerebral palsy and mental retardation. The Madras High Court had observed that the Local Level Committees constituted under the 1999 Act should also be capable of dealing with persons suffering from other recognised disabilities. The 1999 Act, according to that approach, must be applied consistently with the later 2016 Act rather than being interpreted through the framework of the repealed 1995 legislation.<\/p>\n

Decision and Analysis<\/p>\n

The Court after considering the submissions and the statutory framework, accepted the substance of the petitioner’s contention. The Court specifically noted that the brother of the petitioner had been medically assessed as suffering from chronic schizophrenia with 65 per cent disability. The Court also considered the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board and the relevant provisions of the 2016 Act. The Court observed that chronic schizophrenia had not been separately defined in the relevant disability legislation. However, the absence of a specific statutory definition of chronic schizophrenia did not mean that a person suffering from the condition would fall outside the protection of the disability legislation. The Court relied upon the definition of mental illness contained in the Schedule to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016<\/a> and the statutory concepts of “person with disability” and “person with benchmark disability” under Section 2(s<\/span>) and (r<\/span>).<\/p>\n

The Court also took note of the principle emerging from G. Babu case<\/span>, in light of the 2016 Act, the guardianship provisions of the 1999 Act could not be interpreted in an unduly restrictive manner. The purpose of the statutory scheme required consideration of guardianship applications involving persons with disabilities recognised under the later legislation. A person suffering from chronic schizophrenia and having a certified disability of 65 per cent could not simply be excluded from consideration for guardianship on the ground that the condition was not one of the conditions traditionally associated with the National Trust Act, 1999.<\/p>\n

The Court directed the competent authority to consider the representation already submitted by her and to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Court directed Respondent 2 to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 8 September 2025. The authority was directed to provide the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and thereafter take an appropriate decision regarding her appointment as the legal guardian of her brother. The authority was specifically directed to take into consideration the disability certificate issued by the Board of Doctors. The entire exercise was required to be completed within 3 weeks from the date of receipt of the Court’s order.<\/p>\n

[Nibedita Dutta Chaudhuri<\/span> v. State of W.B.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Cal 12781<\/a>, decided on 24-8-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

*Judgment authored by: Justice Krishna Rao<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n

For the Petitioner:<\/span> Rudraksha Chattopadhyay, Advocate<\/p>\n

For the Respondent:<\/span> Dibasish Basu, Ld. AGP, Jayita Dhar Chakraborty, Joy Ranjan Dhar, Advocates<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Court ensured that procedural obstacles did not deprive the petitioner and her brother of consideration under the guardianship framework.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67544,"featured_media":396856,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[109617,115349,115347,115350,115340,115341,115352,115342,2513,115339,115351,64025,115343,39736,34911,33152,51062,31106,31107,45178,115345,115344,115348,115346],"class_list":["post-396854","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-109617","tag-15-and","tag-15-and-16","tag-115350","tag-2r-person-with-benchmark-disability","tag-2s-person-with-disability","tag-2023-scc-online-mad-568","tag-65-per-cent-disability","tag-Calcutta_High_Court","tag-chronic-schizophrenia","tag-g-babu-v-collector","tag-justice-krishna-rao","tag-legal-guardianship-certificate","tag-medical-board","tag-mental-illness","tag-multiple-disabilities","tag-national-trust-act-1999","tag-persons-with-disabilities-equal-opportunities","tag-protection-of-rights-and-full-participation-act-1995","tag-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities-act-2016","tag-section-2i","tag-section-2j","tag-sections","tag-sections-14"],"yoast_head":"\nCalcutta HC on Guardianship for Person with Mental Illness | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Calcutta High Court holds that a certified disability cannot be a technical bar to guardianship for a person with mental illness under the National Trust Act, 1999,\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/22\/calcutta-hcguardianship-person-with-mental-illness\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Calcutta HC on Guardianship for Person with Mental Illness | SCC TimesCalcutta HC: Technical barriers cannot defeat guardianship for person with mental illness\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Calcutta High Court holds that a certified disability cannot be a technical bar to guardianship for a person with mental illness under the National Trust Act, 1999,\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/22\/calcutta-hcguardianship-person-with-mental-illness\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-09-22T10:30:09+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-09-23T12:15:15+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/Guardianship-for-Person-with-Mental-Illness.webp\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/webp\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Chandra Sharma\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Calcutta HC: Technical barriers cannot defeat guardianship for person with mental illness\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Chandra Sharma\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/22\\\/calcutta-hcguardianship-person-with-mental-illness\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/22\\\/calcutta-hcguardianship-person-with-mental-illness\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Chandra Sharma\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/fd34de74f274cfdc852af1e7f13f510d\"},\"headline\":\"Calcutta HC: Technical barriers cannot defeat guardianship for person with mental illness\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-09-22T10:30:09+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-09-23T12:15:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/22\\\/calcutta-hcguardianship-person-with-mental-illness\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1418,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/22\\\/calcutta-hcguardianship-person-with-mental-illness\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/Guardianship-for-Person-with-Mental-Illness.webp\",\"keywords\":[\"14\",\"15 and\",\"15 and 16\",\"16\",\"2(r) person with benchmark disability\",\"2(s) person with disability\",\"2023 SCC OnLine Mad 568\",\"65 per cent disability\",\"Calcutta High Court\",\"chronic schizophrenia\",\"G. Babu v. Collector\",\"Justice Krishna Rao\",\"legal guardianship certificate\",\"Medical Board\",\"mental illness\",\"Multiple Disabilities\",\"National Trust Act 1999\",\"Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities\",\"Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act 1995\",\"Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016\",\"Section 2(i)\",\"Section 2(j)\",\"Sections\",\"Sections 14\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Case Briefs\",\"High Courts\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/22\\\/calcutta-hcguardianship-person-with-mental-illness\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/22\\\/calcutta-hcguardianship-person-with-mental-illness\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/22\\\/calcutta-hcguardianship-person-with-mental-illness\\\/\",\"name\":\"Calcutta HC on Guardianship for Person with Mental Illness | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/22\\\/calcutta-hcguardianship-person-with-mental-illness\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/22\\\/calcutta-hcguardianship-person-with-mental-illness\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/Guardianship-for-Person-with-Mental-Illness.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-09-22T10:30:09+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-09-23T12:15:15+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/fd34de74f274cfdc852af1e7f13f510d\"},\"description\":\"Calcutta High Court holds that a certified disability cannot be a technical bar to guardianship for a person with mental illness under the National Trust Act, 1999,\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/22\\\/calcutta-hcguardianship-person-with-mental-illness\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/22\\\/calcutta-hcguardianship-person-with-mental-illness\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/22\\\/calcutta-hcguardianship-person-with-mental-illness\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/Guardianship-for-Person-with-Mental-Illness.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/Guardianship-for-Person-with-Mental-Illness.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Guardianship for Person with Mental Illness\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/22\\\/calcutta-hcguardianship-person-with-mental-illness\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Calcutta HC: Technical barriers cannot defeat guardianship for person with mental illness\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/fd34de74f274cfdc852af1e7f13f510d\",\"name\":\"Chandra Sharma\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/36ba7149e274113324ac8d01f3e104f48d3c4b93ddf418dc3ae8d94a3e855c6a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/36ba7149e274113324ac8d01f3e104f48d3c4b93ddf418dc3ae8d94a3e855c6a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/36ba7149e274113324ac8d01f3e104f48d3c4b93ddf418dc3ae8d94a3e855c6a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Chandra Sharma\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/chandra-sharma\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Calcutta HC on Guardianship for Person with Mental Illness | SCC Times","description":"Calcutta High Court holds that a certified disability cannot be a technical bar to guardianship for a person with mental illness under the National Trust Act, 1999,","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/22\/calcutta-hcguardianship-person-with-mental-illness\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Calcutta HC on Guardianship for Person with Mental Illness | SCC TimesCalcutta HC: Technical barriers cannot defeat guardianship for person with mental illness","og_description":"Calcutta High Court holds that a certified disability cannot be a technical bar to guardianship for a person with mental illness under the National Trust Act, 1999,","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/22\/calcutta-hcguardianship-person-with-mental-illness\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2026-09-22T10:30:09+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-09-23T12:15:15+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/Guardianship-for-Person-with-Mental-Illness.webp","type":"image\/webp"}],"author":"Chandra Sharma","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Calcutta HC: Technical barriers cannot defeat guardianship for person with mental illness","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Chandra Sharma","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/22\/calcutta-hcguardianship-person-with-mental-illness\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/22\/calcutta-hcguardianship-person-with-mental-illness\/"},"author":{"name":"Chandra Sharma","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/fd34de74f274cfdc852af1e7f13f510d"},"headline":"Calcutta HC: Technical barriers cannot defeat guardianship for person with mental illness","datePublished":"2026-09-22T10:30:09+00:00","dateModified":"2026-09-23T12:15:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/22\/calcutta-hcguardianship-person-with-mental-illness\/"},"wordCount":1418,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/22\/calcutta-hcguardianship-person-with-mental-illness\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/Guardianship-for-Person-with-Mental-Illness.webp","keywords":["14","15 and","15 and 16","16","2(r) person with benchmark disability","2(s) person with disability","2023 SCC OnLine Mad 568","65 per cent disability","Calcutta High Court","chronic schizophrenia","G. Babu v. Collector","Justice Krishna Rao","legal guardianship certificate","Medical Board","mental illness","Multiple Disabilities","National Trust Act 1999","Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities","Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act 1995","Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016","Section 2(i)","Section 2(j)","Sections","Sections 14"],"articleSection":["Case Briefs","High Courts"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/22\/calcutta-hcguardianship-person-with-mental-illness\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/22\/calcutta-hcguardianship-person-with-mental-illness\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/22\/calcutta-hcguardianship-person-with-mental-illness\/","name":"Calcutta HC on Guardianship for Person with Mental Illness | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/22\/calcutta-hcguardianship-person-with-mental-illness\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/22\/calcutta-hcguardianship-person-with-mental-illness\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/Guardianship-for-Person-with-Mental-Illness.webp","datePublished":"2026-09-22T10:30:09+00:00","dateModified":"2026-09-23T12:15:15+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/fd34de74f274cfdc852af1e7f13f510d"},"description":"Calcutta High Court holds that a certified disability cannot be a technical bar to guardianship for a person with mental illness under the National Trust Act, 1999,","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/22\/calcutta-hcguardianship-person-with-mental-illness\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/22\/calcutta-hcguardianship-person-with-mental-illness\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/22\/calcutta-hcguardianship-person-with-mental-illness\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/Guardianship-for-Person-with-Mental-Illness.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/Guardianship-for-Person-with-Mental-Illness.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Guardianship for Person with Mental Illness"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/22\/calcutta-hcguardianship-person-with-mental-illness\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Calcutta HC: Technical barriers cannot defeat guardianship for person with mental illness"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/fd34de74f274cfdc852af1e7f13f510d","name":"Chandra Sharma","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/36ba7149e274113324ac8d01f3e104f48d3c4b93ddf418dc3ae8d94a3e855c6a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/36ba7149e274113324ac8d01f3e104f48d3c4b93ddf418dc3ae8d94a3e855c6a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/36ba7149e274113324ac8d01f3e104f48d3c4b93ddf418dc3ae8d94a3e855c6a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Chandra Sharma"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/chandra-sharma\/"}]}},"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/Guardianship-for-Person-with-Mental-Illness.webp","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/396854","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67544"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=396854"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/396854\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":396953,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/396854\/revisions\/396953"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/396856"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=396854"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=396854"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=396854"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}