Absence of rules does not bar the exercise of statutory power to grant total support under the RPWD Act.

The petitioner, wife of 78-year-old Sh. Jivtesh Singh Maini, challenged an order by the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Saket, which required the periodic submission of medical reports from the Institute of Human Behaviour & Allied Sciences (IHBAS).

The patient suffers from advanced vascular dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, and severe cognitive and physical impairment, rendering him wheelchair-bound and fully dependent.

Although the petitioner was appointed as guardian under Section 14 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPWD Act) on 31.05.2024, the District Court, via an order dated 05.01.2026, refused to accept reports from the patient's private treating physician and insisted on IHBAS reports, which necessitated the physical production of the patient.

This insistence occurred despite a Special CBI Court previously exempting the patient from physical appearance due to being "unfit to stand trial".

Section 14 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which provides for guardianship and the provision of "total support" to persons with disabilities.

Section 101 of the RPWD Act regarding the State Government's power to frame rules for limited guardianship.

Precedent in Orissa State (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Board v. Orient Paper Mills, which establishes that the absence of rules does not prevent the exercise of statutory power by a concerned authority.

The Court analyzed the first proviso of Section 14 of the RPWD Act, determining that the District Court has the authority to grant "total support" if a person with disability requires it, or where limited guardianship is granted repeatedly.

The Court rejected the notion that the lack of specific rules framed under Section 101 for "total support" prevents the exercise of this statutory mandate.

Linking the law to the facts, the Court noted the patient's grave, chronic, and irreversible medical condition.

It found the District Court’s insistence on the physical production of the patient for IHBAS reports to be disproportionate and contrary to the legislative intent of the RPWD Act.

The Court reasoned that the statutory framework must be interpreted to accommodate the physical realities of the disabled person rather than imposing medically unsafe procedural burdens.

Pending a final decision by the District Judge, the Court held that the insistence on an IHBAS report is dispensed with, and medical reports from the patient’s private treating doctor shall be deemed sufficient for compliance.

Physical production of the patient was effectively stayed for the purpose of periodic reporting.