Down syndrome patients entitled to protections under National Trust Act, rules Kerala high court

Kochi: Kerala high court, in a significant judgment, held that Down syndrome falls within the ambit of the National Trust for the Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999, an enactment intended to ensure that such individuals can live as independently as possible, with dignity, within their families and communities.

A bench of Justice C S Dias issued the ruling while allowing a petition filed by the father of a 22-year-old woman with Down syndrome, challenging an order of the Kottayam district collector rejecting his application to be appointed as her legal guardian. The daughter was born in 2004. According to the petitioner, his wife left the matrimonial home along with their daughter in Dec 2024.

The petitioner’s case was that his wife has no independent source of income and that his daughter requires continuous care and protection, as she has Down syndrome with a permanent disability assessed at 55%. Accordingly, he approached the district collector seeking appointment as her legal guardian under the National Trust for the Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act. However, the district collector rejected the application on the ground that Down syndrome does not fall within any of the categories of disability recognised under the Act, prompting the petitioner to approach HC.

The petitioner’s wife and daughter opposed the plea, contending that the daughter had attained maturity and was entitled to decide with whom she wished to live. However, the court examined the legality of the district collector’s order, which rejected the petitioner’s application on the ground that Down syndrome did not fall within the purview of the Act. Upon examining the facts of the case and the relevant regulations governing disability criteria, HC noted that Down syndrome is a complex genetic condition resulting in lifelong health challenges, including varying degrees of intellectual disability and developmental delay affecting speech, learning and memory.

The amicus curiae appointed by the court also placed on record authoritative literature to support the 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. Accordingly, HC concluded that the condition falls within the purview of the Act. The court consequently quashed the district collector’s order and directed him to reconsider the petitioner’s application and take a decision within three months after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, his wife and their daughter.