Mental incapacity claims can’t override elderly privacy rights: Madras High Court

“Privacy in proceedings of this nature is not merely an individual right. It is also a social value with common, public and collective dimensions…The integrity of the guardianship jurisdiction depends upon ensuring that untested allegations of incapacity are not used as instruments of family control or as means of exerting pressure in disputes concerning property,” the court said on July 29.

The dispute arose after the elderly man suffered a stroke in May 2021. The elder son alleged his father became mentally incapacitated thereafter, was removed from a family partnership, and that settlement deeds executed on November 26, 2022, and a mortgage dated December 7, 2022, were obtained without his knowledge. The wife and younger son denied the allegations, claiming he was physically paralysed and speech-impaired but mentally sound and able to communicate through gestures.

Justice Dr A D Maria Clete cautioned against allowing unverified claims of mental incapacity to be used in family property disputes. (Image enhanced using AI)

Clause 17 jurisdiction survives

The applicants argued that the guardianship petition was not maintainable because Clause 17 of the Letters Patent applies only to “idiots and lunatics” and that the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, now governs such matters.

Rejecting the contention, the high court held that its parens patriae (legal guardian) jurisdiction under Clause 17 remains intact as none of the Mental Healthcare Act, the National Trust Act or the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act expressly excludes it or provides for court-appointed guardianship of an adult alleged to be of unsound mind.

Mental illness certificate not mandatory

Another key issue before the court was whether such a petition must be accompanied by a certificate of mental illness issued by a statutory authority. The court answered in the negative, relying on Section 105 of the Mental Healthcare Act, which allows courts to refer disputed questions of mental illness to the mental health review board during pending proceedings.

“Had Parliament intended a certificate obtained before the institution of proceedings to be a condition precedent, Section 105 would have had no occasion to operate,” the judgment said.

The judgment distinguished physical disability and mental incapacity, holding that loss of speech, impaired mobility, advanced age or even suffering a stroke does not automatically establish that a person is incapable of managing personal or financial affairs.

“The relevant inquiry is whether the person possesses the mental capacity to understand, evaluate and communicate decisions concerning his person, property and civil affairs,” the court said.

It added that such a finding cannot be based merely on family allegations, old medical records or a judge’s brief interaction with the proposed ward, but must rest on a current and proper medical assessment.

Privacy must be protected

• Emphasising the importance of privacy, the court said it is not merely an individual right but also a public and collective value.
• Allowing unverified allegations of incapacity to trigger intrusive proceedings, it said, could undermine the integrity of guardianship jurisdiction and enable misuse in family property disputes.
• The court held that privacy should be protected through a consistent legal procedure rather than ad hoc measures.
• It also observed that where disputes arise within families, mediation should first be explored because it may avoid subjecting the proposed ward to a formal and potentially intrusive examination.
• The court added, “The finding of incapacity cannot therefore rest merely upon a relative’s affidavit, an old discharge summary, a lay person’s impression, or the Court’s own impression formed during a brief interaction. It must be founded upon a current and proper medical assessment of the person’s decision-making capacity.”
• Loss of speech, impaired mobility, dependence upon others, advanced age, or the fact of having suffered a stroke does not, by itself, establish unsoundness of mind, it said.

Holding that the father’s mental capacity remains a disputed question of fact requiring determination through the statutory mechanism, the high court dismissed the application seeking rejection of the guardianship petition. It clarified that all issues relating to the father’s mental condition, decision-making capacity, care and property remain open for determination in the main proceedings.