GUARDIANSHIP VERSUS CITIZENSHIP: A JURISPRUDENTIAL ANALYSIS OF LEGAL CAPACITY AND THE DISENFRANCHISEMENT OF PERSONS WITH INTELLECTUAL DISABILITIES IN THE INDIAN ELECTORAL FRAMEWORK

The legal framework governing the rights of persons with disabilities in India, in the present scenario, is characterised by a profound normative schism. One side stands progressive, aligning the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPWD Act) and the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 (MHCA) with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities(UNCRPD),recognising legal capacity as universal and inherent. On the other hand, remains archaic, based on the framework of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (RPA) and the National Trust Act, 1999, which continues to operationalise disqualifications based on “unsoundness of mind” and “guardianship”. This article shall provide an exhaustive legal analysis of the conflict, examining how the intersection of electoral laws and guardianship lawsresults in a systematic disenfranchisement of citizens with intellectual and psychosocial disabilities. Arguing that the retention of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 creates a boundary of civil death where guardianship becomes the justification for disenfranchisement. Through statutory incoherence, domestic jurisprudence, this article establishes the current electoral framework, violating the constitutional mandate of equality obligation to replace substituted decision-making with supportive decision-making.