Mumbai: Bombay High Court on Monday frowned at the center and stated more than the use of the term ‘mental retardation’ in law and even in official use.
“Failure, crazy man, backward ancient mentality …
I will not, even if needed, see this provision.
In my court if these words are used, the order of fees will follow,” Justice Gautam Patel said.
He heard a lawsuit by the son of a doctor (57) from byculla to appoint his legal com to manage his engaged and immovable assets, accounts and bank affairs.
The Father has been in a vegetative since June 28, 2018 after a large-scale stroke resulting in acute brain injury due to lack of oxygen.
He was dismissed on August 5, 2018.
Report Neurology’s January 2021 confirmed his condition and said he was lying in bed and though aware, not oriented with time, place and person.
He has severe comorbidity such as diabetes and hypertension.
He is hemodynamically stable, but he cannot do any task or make a decision.
Advocate Putra Pramod Tambe said the lawsuit was submitted based on orders 32 A (2) (Guardian from someone who was defective) from the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 because there were no other provisions in the law.
The Jyoti Chavan state advocate said it was “Malang case,” and the JJ Hospital panel must be directed at examining patients and submitting a report.
But the judge asked if the State denied a private hospital report better than JJ Hospital.
The Yogeshwar Bhate Central Advocate said the Petitioner had to submit a request under the national trust for the welfare of people with autism, cerebral palsy, mental retardation and several disabilities of ACT, 1999, and trust (committees) would decide on the application.
Justice Patel questioned whether someone’s family member who suffered from a stroke is expected to approach the trust in the guardian appointed and why they cannot approach the court.
He also said that action would not apply to clinical conditions.
“It has terms such as autism, cerebral palsy, some defects.
But mental retardation? Whoever has compiled this backward,” Justice Patel said.
He said ancient laws with such terms must be revoked.
He told the state “your JJ Hospital” also uses the term ‘mental retardation’ in the certificate and asks if the government supports its use.
“This is inability to their condition (challenged mentally),” he said.
Noting that the two men’s sisters agreed to his appointment as a law guardian, Patel allowed the petition.
Bombay Center Slam High Court, Maharashtra for the use of ‘mental retardation’
