THE CONCEPT OF GUARDIANSHIP UNDER THE CHILD RIGHTS ACT
The Childs Rights Act does not define the term “guardianship.” A guardian, according to Black’s Law Dictionary, is “a person who has legal authority and a duty of care for another person, particularly because of the other’s infancy, incapacity, or disability”. 
Indeed, the legal authority to act in locus parentis over a child due to parental absence, can be correctly inferred from the concept of guardianship.
Although the Act does not define guardianship or who a guardian is, it provides clearly that the parents of a child are the guardians as of the first instance. Section 83(1) in this regard, provides that “the parents of a child shall have guardianship of the child and, in the event of the death of a parent, the surviving parent shall be the guardian of the child.”
The Act also mentions two different types of guardians. The first is a guardian, who has parental responsibilities (custody, maintenance, welfare, and so on), and the second is a guardian ad litem, who is charged with representing a child in certain proceedings.  By the collective provisions of Section 83 and 84(1), the four ways in which guardianship arises under the Act include:
Where the parents of a child are not fit to be guardians of a child jointly or severally, the court shall, on the application of a member of the family or an appropriate authority, appoint a person to be a joint guardian with the parent or parents of the child.
2. Appointment by Deed by a Surviving Parent:
A surviving parent of a child via the execution of a deed, may appoint another to act as a guardian of a child, in the event that such a parent dies.
3. Appointment by Deed by a Single Parent:
A single parent of a child via the execution of a deed, may appoint another to act as a guardian of a child upon the death of the single parent.
4. Children Without Parents or Children in Respect of Whom a Residence Order has been Made:
By the extant provisions of Section 84(1) of the Act, the court may grant guardianship to a person, who has made an application in respect of a child without parents or parental care, or one in respect of whom a residence order had been made, at the instance of a deceased parent or guardian.
Owing to the fact that the Act enumerates the grounds for guardianship, it is evident that, in addition to guardianship as a result of incapacitated parents, another rationale for an application under Section 84(1) would typically arise from situations, in which the highlighted factors causing guardianship are not met. For instance, an application would be necessitated where deeds appointing a guardian were not executed under Sections 83(3) and (4) of the Act.
For clarity, Section 84(1) reads:
“Where an application for the guardianship of a child is made to the Court by a person, the Court may, by order, appoint that person to be the guardian of the child if-
(a) the child has no parent with parental responsibility for him; or
(b) a residence order has been made in respect to the child in favour of a parent or guardian of the child who has died, while the order was in force.”
The inherent problem identified in the preceding section is that, while it empowers a person to make guardianship applications for obviously orphaned children, it fails to specify any criteria for determining the competence of persons qualified to make such applications. From a socioeconomic perspective, it can be legitimately argued that this would spell doom for children with unconscionable guardians, who might, for example, mismanage the estate of an orphaned child. This is possible in light of Section 87 of the Act, which states that a guardian appointed by will or otherwise by the rules of common law, equity, or appropriate personal law shall have all such powers over the estate, as the case may be, of a child as a guardian appointed by will or otherwise by the rules of common law, equity, or appropriate personal law.
From a social standpoint, the lack of criteria to be met by potential guardians, would allow a child to be raised in a manner that is contrary to his deceased parents’ wishes. For example, the moral codes, religious beliefs, and light philosophies instilled in the child by a guardian appointed under Section 84 of the Act, may be incompatible with the values instilled by the parent(s).