After considering the case, the bench said that the petitioner, while being the father of his son with disabilities, in light of being an American citizen cannot claim or assert a vested right to be appointed as his guardian.
Such a right would have to flow from a provision that may be in existence and which permits a foreigner to claim a right to be appointed as a guardian unfettered by any valid statutory restrictions, the court underlined.
“Additionally, the Court notes that guardianship cannot be recognised as a right that may flow from any of the provisions which stand enshrined in Part III of the Constitution and those under which protection may be claimed even by a foreign national. It, in any case, finds itself unable to countenance Articles 14 or 21 as being the source or the repository of a claim that may be raised in that regard,” the Court said.
Source: Barandbench
