THE IMBROGLIO OF LEGAL CAPACITY IN INDIAN DISABILITY LAW and 14 speak at cross-purposes. Whilst Section 13 has been drafted in accord with the CRPD mandate; Section 14 seems to be doing the exact reverse. The confusion or ambivalence present in the statutory provisions again emerges in the Rules formulated by different state governments to implement this part of the Act. With some variations, the Rules of all states follow a common template. An application for limited guardianship can be filed by a parent, relative or an organisation registered under the Act. Assam and Tamil Nadu also allow for a person with disability to file the application. There is some variation in the authority to whom the application can be made. Whilst some states have conferred the power on a judicial body like the District Court, others have conferred the authority on executive agencies like the District Collector in Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh or the Local Level Committee as in Chhattisgarh. In most places, the deciding authority is expected to decide on the matter in one month — Telangana has specified two months and Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan have extended the time limit to three months. Parents, spouse, siblings, other relatives, a registered organisation or a prominent person in the locality have been specified as the category of persons, who can be appointed as limited guardians. Nearly all the rules require the guardian to consult with the person with disability and act jointly and in mutual understanding. The guardians are also to act in the best interest of the person with disability. The question of will and preference, which has been accorded such importance by the CRPD Treaty Body, is largely noticeable by its absence. Only the state of Tamil Nadu requires the District Collector to enquire from persons with disabilities whether they need a limited guardian; and Assam has an elaborate assessment system; otherwise, in all other states, the matter has been left to the sole judgement of the adjudicating authority. Tamil Nadu, Telangana and Meghalaya have some system of oversight and procedure for removal of the limited guardian. In most other states, the appointment of a guardian has been further simplified. The Mental Health Act of 1987, even the Indian Lunacy Act of 1912 saw the appointment of a guardian as a deprivation imposed on the person with disability, which could not be undertaken without following the demands of fair procedure. The RPDA 2016 has made the appointment of a limited guardian like a benefit being provided to the person with disability. Consequently, the procedure of appointment has been largely simplified, with many State Rules not even designating an authority to whom the person with disability 39