V K SATHEESH KUMAR vs THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
- Court
- Kerala High Court
2026:KER:37272
W.P.(C) No.12482 of 2025
1
“C.R”
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
RD
WEDNESDAY, THE 3 DAY OF JUNE 2026 / 13TH JYAISHTA, 1948
WP(C) NO. 12482 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
V K SATHEESH KUMAR
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O KOCHUKUTTY, VARIKKATTU HOUSE, PADINJATTIN KARA,
MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686571
BY ADV SRI.S.DILEEP (KALLAR)
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686002
2 THE DISTRICT OFFICER
SOCIAL JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, DISTRICT OFFICE,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686002
3 ASWANI SATHEESH
AGED 19 YEARS
2026:KER:37272
W.P.(C) No.12482 of 2025
2
D/O SATHEESH KUMAR, SANKARA NILAYAM, EDANAD P O,
VALLICHIRA VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686574
4 SOUMYA SATHEESH
AGED 45 YEARS
W/O SATHEESH KUMAR, SANKARA NILAYAM, EDANAD P O,
VALLICHIRA VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686574
BY ADVS.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SHRI.JOSEPH CHANDY
SHRI.K.R.RANJITH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER WITH STATE
ATTORNEY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 03.06.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:37272
W.P.(C) No.12482 of 2025
3
“C.R.”
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.12482 of 2025
-----------------------------------------
rd
Dated this the 3 day of June, 2026
JUDGMENT
th
The petitioner is the husband of the 4 respondent
rd rd
and the father of the 3 respondent. The 3 respondent
was born on 18.05.2004. Ext.P1 Standing Disability
rd
Assessment Board Certificate substantiates that the 3
respondent is disabled with Down Syndrome and her
disability is of a moderate category. Ext.P2 disability
registration certificate issued by the Ministry of Social
rd
Justice and Empowerment evidences that the 3
respondent is a person with intellectual disability of 55
per cent. The petitioner asserts that on 22.12.2024, the
th
4 respondent left the matrimonial home, along with the
rd
3 respondent, without any justifiable cause. It is his case
2026:KER:37272
W.P.(C) No.12482 of 2025
4
th
that the 4 respondent has no independent source of
income. Despite lodging complaints with the Police, no
rd
effective action has been taken. As the 3 respondent has
Down Syndrome and requires continuous care and
protection, the petitioner submitted Ext.P8 application
st
before the 1 respondent to appoint him as the legal
rd
guardian of the 3 respondent as per the provisions of
the National Trust for the Welfare of Persons with
Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple
Disabilities Act, 1999 (for short, “the Act”). However, by
st
Ext.P9 communication, the 1 respondent rejected the
application on the premise that Down Syndrome does not
fall within any of the categories of disability recognised
under the Act. Aggrieved thereby, this writ petition is
filed.
2. The respondents 3 and 4 have filed a counter-
affidavit opposing the writ petition. They contend that the
2026:KER:37272
W.P.(C) No.12482 of 2025
5
petitioner has been maintaining an unnatural relationship
with a 22-year-old male. The petitioner has also subjected
th
the 4 respondent to matrimonial cruelty. It is further
rd
contended that, as the 3 respondent has attained
majority, she is entitled to decide with whom she wishes
to live. It would neither be desirable nor conducive to the
rd
welfare of the 3 respondent to compel her to live with
the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition may be
dismissed.
3. In the reply affidavit, the petitioner has
categorically denied the allegations levelled against him.
He has reiterated that he has been denied access to his
rd
daughter. According to him, the 3 respondent requires
his care, affection and support. Her welfare would be
secured by appointing him as her legal guardian.
4. I have heard Sri. Dileep S. Kallar, the learned
counsel for the petitioner; Sri. Joseph Chandy, the
2026:KER:37272
W.P.(C) No.12482 of 2025
6
learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4; Sri.
K.R. Ranjith, the learned Government Pleader; and Smt.
Sathyasree Priya Easwaran, the learned Amicus Curiae.
st
5. The point is whether the 1 respondent was
justified in rejecting Ext.P8 application on the ground
that Down Syndrome is not a disability falling within the
purview of the Act.
6. In Ext.P8 application, the petitioner had
rd
specifically asserted that the 3 respondent suffers from
55% disability on account of Down Syndrome and,
therefore, the petitioner may be appointed as the
guardian of his daughter to protect her welfare and best
interest. In support of the application, the petitioner
produced Exts.P1 and P2 certificates. Nevertheless, the
st
1 respondent summarily rejected the application on the
ground that Down Syndrome is not a disability falling
within the framework of the Act.
2026:KER:37272
W.P.(C) No.12482 of 2025
7
7. To appreciate the correctness of the above
conclusion, it is necessary to advert to the relevant
provisions of the Act, particularly the preamble of the
Act, Sections 2(g), 2(h), 2(j), 2(o) and 14, together with
Rule 16 of the National Trust for the Welfare of Persons
with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and
Multiple Disabilities Rules, 2000 and Regulations 11 to
13 of the Board of the Trust Regulations, 2001.
7.1. The Preamble of the Act reads thus:
“An Act to provide for the constitution of a body at the National
level for the Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy,
Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities and for matters
connected therewith or incidental thereto.”
7.2. Section 2(g) reads thus:
“(g) “mental retardation” means a condition of arrested or
incomplete development of mind of a person which is specially
characterised by sub-normality of intelligence.”
7.3. Section 2(h) reads as follows:
“(h) “multiple disabilities” means a combination of two or more
disabilities as defined in clause (i) of section 2 of the Persons with
Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full
Participation) Act, 1995 (1 of 1996).”
7.4. Section 2(j) reads thus:
2026:KER:37272
W.P.(C) No.12482 of 2025
8
“(j) “persons with disability” means a person suffering from any of
the conditions relating to autism, cerebral palsy, mental
retardation or a combination of any two or more of such conditions
and includes a person suffering from severe multiple disability.”
7.5. Section 2(o) reads as follows:
“(o) “severe disability” means disability with eighty per cent. or
more of one or more multiple disabilities”
7.6. Section 14 reads thus:
“14. Appointment for guardianship.—(1) A parent of a person with
disability or his relative may make an application to the local level
committee for appointment of any person of his choice to act as a
guardian of the persons with disability.
(2) Any registered organisation may make an application in the
prescribed form to the local level committee for appointment of a
guardian for a person with disability: Provided that no such
application shall be entertained by the local level committee,
unless the consent of the guardian of the disabled person is also
obtained.
(3) While considering the application for appointment of a
guardian, the local level committee shall consider—
(a) whether the person with disability needs a guardian;
(b) the purposes for which the guardianship is required for
person with disability.
(4) The local level committee shall receive, process and decide
applications received under subsections (1) and (2), in such
manner as may be determined by regulations: Provided that while
making recommendation for the appointment of a guardian, the
local level committee shall provide for the obligations which are to
be fulfilled by the guardian.
(5) The local level committee shall send to the Board the
particulars of the applications received by it and orders passed
thereon at such interval as may be determined by regulations.”
7.7. Rule 16 of the National Trust for the Welfare of
Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation
2026:KER:37272
W.P.(C) No.12482 of 2025
9
and Multiple Disabilities Rules, 2000 (‘Rules’, for short)
reads as follows:
“14. Decision by majority - All questions considered at a meeting
shall be decided by a majority of votes of the members present
and voting and in the event of equality of votes, the Chairperson
or in his absence, the member presiding at the meeting, as the
case may be, shall have a second or casting vote.”
7.8. Regulations 11 to 13 of the Board of the Trust
Regulations, 2001, read as follows:
“11. Who may apply for guardianship:
(1) Both the parents may jointly, or, in the event of the absence of
one due to death, divorce, legal separation, desertion or
conviction, may singly apply for guardianship of their or as the
case may be his ward beyond the age of 18 years.
(2) In the event of death, desertion, conviction of both the
parents, the siblings (including half and step siblings) jointly or
singly (reason of single application to be explained separately) may
apply for guardianship of a disabled member of the family.
(3) In the event of non-application of sub-registration (1) and (2)
above, a relative may make an application for guardianship.
(4) In the event of non-application of sub-regulation (1), (2) and
(3), any registered organization may make an application for
guardianship.
(5) The Local Level Committee may direct a registered
organization to make an application for guardianship in case of a
destitute or abandoned person.
12. Who may be indicated by applicant as guardian:
(1) Both the parents jointly, or, singly in the event of the absence
of one due to death, divorce, legal separation, desertion or
conviction, being natural guardian of minor may apply to the Local
Level Committee to get themselves or himself as the case may be,
appointed as guardian of their or as the case may be his disabled
ward beyond the age of 18, in which case the application shall be
accepted unless the parent is disqualified on account of
i. loss of citizenship;
2026:KER:37272
W.P.(C) No.12482 of 2025
10
ii. being of unsound mind;
iii. being convicted by a court of law; or
iv. being a destitute.
(2) The applicant may indicate siblings, or any member of the
family or any other person or a registered institution for
consideration as a guardian and in case of institutions, the
conditions of eligibility of institutions shall be as stipulated in sub-
regulations (3), (4) and (5).
(3) In the case of considering the institution as a guardian, the
institution must be registered under a law and be capable of
providing care of the person.
(4) In the event of institution ceasing to be registered under a law
or stops functioning, or is found otherwise unsuitable, the Local
Level Committee shall make alternative arrangements for the
foster care of any such inmate or the ward, who is under the care
of any such institute.
(5) The alternative care under sub-regulation (4) shall not be
permanent in nature and shall be placed by permanent
guardianship within a period of one year.
(6) The applicant must be living in the vicinity or close proximity to
the place where the ward has been habitually living at the time of
appointment of guardian.
(7) No single male shall be considered as a guardian for a female
ward and in the case of female wards, the male person shall be
given co-guardianship with his spouse, who shall be master co-
guardian.
13. Guidelines for receiving, processing and confirmation of
application for appointment of a guardian:
(1) The Local Level Committee shall receive applications for
appointment of guardian in Form D or Form A under the rules.
(2) On receipt of the application for appointment of guardian, the
Local Level Committee shall scrutinize the application and call for
any supporting document or information that may be necessary for
deciding the issue of guardianship.
(3) In case of application received from parents for guardian other
than themselves, the Local Level Committee may decide to get
parent's counselling in any manner, it may decide to determine the
genuineness of having a guardian other than parents.
(4) If parents or relatives are not available for the person with
disability who is in need of guardian, because of being a vagrant or
destitute or found abandoned, member or members of the
2026:KER:37272
W.P.(C) No.12482 of 2025
11
Committee may ask for applications from a registered organization
to initiate the process of guardianship for the person.
(5) The person with disability must be assessed by the Local Level
Committee, to determine the genuineness of the need of
guardianship and it shall be open to the Local Level Committee to
seek the assistance of technical personnel or their services to
determine the need.
(6) The local level committee shall satisfy itself about the
capabilities and the suitability of the person on whom guardianship
is being conferred.
(7) The application for guardianship for personal care and
maintenance shall be accepted to cover the following areas,
namely
a. Food, clothing and shelter needs;
b. Health care needs;
c. Religious needs;
d. Education, training and employment needs;
e. Leisure and nutrition needs;
f. Protection from exploitation and abuse;
g. Protection of constitutional and human rights; and
h. Medical and surgical needs
(8) The confirmation of appointment of the guardian on application
made by (1) a registered organization; or (2) the parent or relative
of a person with disability shall be made in Form E or Form B
under the rules”.
8. As extracted above, Section 2(g) of the Act
defines 'mental retardation' as a condition of arrested or
incomplete development of the mind of a person, which is
specially characterised by sub-normality of intelligence.
Likewise, Section 2(j) defines a ‘person with disability’
as a person suffering from any of the conditions relating
to autism, cerebral palsy, intellectual disability or a
2026:KER:37272
W.P.(C) No.12482 of 2025
12
combination of any two or more of such conditions and
includes a person suffering from severe multiple
disabilities. Similarly, under Section 2(h), ‘multiple
disabilities’ mean a combination of two or more
disabilities as defined in clause (i) of Section 2 of the
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection
of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1955.
rd
9. The materials placed establish that the 3
respondent has Down Syndrome.
10. The Guidelines notified by the Government of
India through S.O. 76(E) dated 04.01.2018, for
assessment of specified disabilities under the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, recognise intellectual
disability as a condition requiring evaluation and
certification. Chapter IV of the Guidelines specifically
deals with intellectual disabilities.
2026:KER:37272
W.P.(C) No.12482 of 2025
13
11. The IAP Handbook of Development and
Behavioural Paediatrics describes Down Syndrome as a
complex genetic condition resulting in lifelong health
challenges, including varying degrees of intellectual
disability and developmental delay affecting speech,
learning and memory. The Handbook further notes that
Down Syndrome constitutes the most common genetic
cause of intellectual disability.
12. Likewise, the report titled 'Behavioural
Problems in Children with Down Syndrome', prepared by
the Department of Paediatrics, All India Institute of
Medical Sciences, New Delhi, and the Department of
Psychiatry, University College of Medical Sciences and
Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, records a significantly
higher prevalence of psychiatric disorders and
developmental delays among children affected by Down
Syndrome.
2026:KER:37272
W.P.(C) No.12482 of 2025
14
13. The learned Amicus Curiae has also placed on
record authoritative literature to fortify her contention
that Down Syndrome is an intellectual disability falling
squarely within the ambit of “mental retardation” as
defined under Section 2(g) of the Act.
14. Ext.P1 certificate issued by a duly constituted
five-member Standing Disability Assessment Board
attached to the Government District Hospital, Kottayam,
rd
unequivocally certifies that the 3 respondent has
intellectual disability attributable to Down Syndrome,
with a permanent disability assessed at 55%. The
certificate further states that a disability exceeding 40%
is considered severe. Ext.P2 disability registration
rd
certificate similarly proves that the 3 respondent has
intellectual disability to the extent of 55%.
15. In the face of the above statutory provisions,
medical literature and disability certificates issued by
2026:KER:37272
W.P.(C) No.12482 of 2025
15
st
competent authorities, the conclusion arrived at by the 1
respondent that Down Syndrome does not fall within the
purview of the Act seems to be erroneous.
st
16. Equally significant is the fact that the 1
respondent has rejected Ext.P8 application without
following the procedure envisaged under the Act, Rules
or Regulations and without affording either the petitioner
or respondents 3 and 4 an opportunity of being heard.
The statutory scheme envisages scrutiny of the
application, collection of relevant materials, assessment
of the person with a disability, and ascertainment of
whether the person in need of care requires a guardian.
None of the above mandatory requirements contemplated
under the Statute appears to have been complied with by
st
the 1 respondent. Thus, Ext.P9 communication and
process leading to the decision are manifestly arbitrary,
2026:KER:37272
W.P.(C) No.12482 of 2025
16
suffer from non-application of mind and are vitiated by
errors of both law and fact.
In the above conspectus, Ext.P9 communication is
st
quashed. The 1 respondent/competent authority is
ordered to reconsider Ext.P8 complaint in accordance
with the law, after affording the petitioner and the
respondents 3 and 4 an opportunity of being heard. The
above exercise shall be completed within three months
from the date of production of a copy of this judgment,
untrammelled by any observation made in this judgment.
This Court places on record its appreciation for the
valuable assistance rendered by the learned Amicus
Curiae.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
dkr
2026:KER:37272
W.P.(C) No.12482 of 2025
17
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 12482 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE STANDING DISABILITY
ASSESSMENT BOARD CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY
THE MEDICAL BOARD MEMBERS OF GOVERNMENT
DISTRICT HOSPITAL, KOTTAYAM DATED
18/04/2011 .
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE BEARING
NO. 32100000022052421386 DATED 30/05/2022
ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF EMPOWERMENT
OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES, MINISTRY OF
SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DECLARATION ISSUED
FROM MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF
BEHAVIOURAL SCIENCES, KOTTAYAM DATED
22/07/2024.
EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
26/12/2024 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE KIDANGOOR POLICE.
EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY
THE KIDANGOOR POLICE DATED 26/12/2024.
EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DYSP, PALA.
EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
DATED 10/01/2025 FOR THE RECEIPT OF THE
EXHIBIT P6 .
EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 30/01/2025.
EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO.
SJD/KTM/DSJO/54/2025-A4 DATED 24/02/2025.
2026:KER:37272
W.P.(C) No.12482 of 2025
18
EXHIBIT P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FRONT PAGE OF
ROOPESH PASSPORT BEARING NO. R4138663
WHICH CONTAINS HIS ADDRESS
EXHIBIT P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DRIVING LICENSE IN
THE NAME OF ROOPESH BEARING NO. KL35
20110001309
EXHIBIT P12 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TRUST DEED DATED
01/08/2022