Foreign National Barred from Guardianship Appointment Under Rule 17(3)(a) of National Trust Rules, 2000

Petitioner No. 1, a foreign national, is the sister of Petitioner No. 2.

Petitioner No. 2 is an Indian national diagnosed with 100% locomotor disability due to Cerebral Palsy, mental retardation, and seizures.

Following the death of their parents, Petitioner No. 1 sought to be appointed as the guardian of the person and property of Petitioner No. 2.

The Trial Court and District Magistrate refused the request on the grounds that Petitioner No. 1 is not an Indian citizen.

The Petitioners approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus for the appointment or a direction to consider the application regardless of nationality.

Whether a foreign national can be appointed as a guardian for a person with disabilities under the National Trust Rules, 2000.

Whether the Indian nationality of the ward (Petitioner No. 2) creates a material distinction that exempts the guardian (Petitioner No. 1) from the citizenship requirement.

The court applied Rule 17, sub-Rule 3(a) of the National Trust Rules, 2000, which stipulates that a guardian must be a citizen of India.

It relied heavily on the precedent *Sunil Poddar v. The National Trust for Welfare of Person with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities and Anr.* (2023), which established that the citizenship requirement is essential for effective statutory monitoring under Sections 15, 16, and 17 of the National Trust Act.

This monitoring includes the delivery of property inventories and periodic financial returns, which would be impeded if a guardian were a non-resident or non-citizen.

The Court rejected the Petitioners' attempt to distinguish their case from *Sunil Poddar* on the grounds that, while the ward in the present case is an Indian national, the proposed guardian remains a foreign national.

The Court reasoned that the statutory scheme requires the guardian to be subject to the jurisdiction and continuous oversight of Indian authorities to prevent the abuse or neglect of the disabled person.

The Court found that the Petitioner’s status as a foreign national creates an "embargo" under Rule 17(3)(a), and the distinction regarding the ward's nationality is "immaterial" to the legal requirement placed upon the guardian.

Consequently, the Court held it could not issue a writ of mandamus that would contravene the express provisions of the Act and Rules.

However, the Court directed that the temporary humanitarian arrangement made via its interim order dated 07.11.2024 shall remain in force until modified by a competent court.

The Petitioners were granted liberty to pursue legal remedies regarding visa issues.

The petition was disposed of with these observations.