• Kumari Ranjana Bharti

The case of RP highlights a conceptual confusion linked to the notion of mental capacity. The literature relating to disability is an ongoing conclusion that one's "mental capacity" is a fixed attribute, which can be objectively defined without reference to the decision-making or information context. This is out of step with the CRPD and modern capacity legislation. In the context of providing relevant information and in a manner that takes into consideration the particular circumstances of the individual, mental capacity must always be determined. The CRPD recognises that "comprehension" is never an independent concept. It is influenced by the ability of a person to receive and understand information in the sense of "make sense of." For instance, a person who is afraid or stressed may not be able to hear or understand basic instructions. An individual may not understand information provided in an unfamiliar language. Information may be incomprehensible if it is linked to unknown knowledge or facts. In short, mental capacity always depends on subjectivity, information and the context. Failure to understand does not indicate incompetence but indicates possible information deficits or delivery.

Social Law, Human Rights, Review

"A REVIEW PAPER ON SOCIAL LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS", International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (www.jetir.org), ISSN:2349-5162, Vol.5, Issue 11, page no.958-964, November-2018, Available :http://www.jetir.org/papers/JETIR1811C44.pdf

"A REVIEW PAPER ON SOCIAL LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS", International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (www.jetir.org | UGC and issn Approved), ISSN:2349-5162, Vol.5, Issue 11, page no. pp958-964, November-2018, Available at : http://www.jetir.org/papers/JETIR1811C44.pdf