The Punjab and Haryana High Court disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed  regarding the grievance of the constitution of the Mental Health Review Boards under the provisions of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017.

The PIL has been filed by one  Anshul Mangla.

Petitioner appearing in person apprised the Court  that he has filed a fresh representation before the competent authority .

Deepak Balyan, Additional  AG Haryana, submits that in case any such representation is pending, the same shall be considered and decided by the authority, in accordance with law. 
He further submits that the matter is within the knowledge and cognizance of the authority, which is taking appropriate steps to implement the provisions of the said Act. 

Taking the statements made by the counsel for the parties on record, the petition stands disposed of in terms thereof by the Division Bench of Chief Justice Ravi Shanker Jha and Justice Arun Palli .

The Bombay High Court disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed  praying that in four Government Regional Mental Hospitals the post of Medical Superintendent ought to be manned by Psychiatrist.

The petitioner – a practicing Gynecologist has preferred the PILpraying that in four Government Regional Mental Hospitals – at Nagpur, Pune, Thane and Ratnagiri, the post of Medical Superintendent ought to be manned by Psychiatrist. According to the petitioner, presence of Psychiatrist as Medical Superintendent would have its own positive effect in treatment of patients taking treatment at the Mental Hospitals.

Instances have been pointed out where a Pediatrician was appointed as Medical Superintendent thus frustrating the object behind the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 . In that backdrop, it was prayed that the respondents be directed to appoint a Psychiatrist as Superintendent at the Government Regional Mental Hospitals run by it.  

After notice was issued in the present proceedings, an affidavit has been filed by the respondents in which it has been stated that the post of Medical Superintendent requires the incumbent to perform various duties such as health administration, purchase and procurement of medicines and material, etc. Hence, a Psychiatrist could be attached to the post of Medical Superintendent to enable both of them to function in collaboration. In the said affidavit, the duties of the Medical Superintendent have been indicated. It has been further stated that with the help of a Psychiatrist, he takes rounds and observes admitted patients.  

The Nagpur Division Bench of Justice  A. S. Chandurkar Justice Mrs. Vrushali V. Joshi  found that under the Act of 2017 and the Rules framed thereunder, there is no statutory requirement that a Medical Superintendent should be a Psychiatrist.

The Court noted that the stand taken in the aforesaid affidavit that in Mental Hospitals, Psychiatrist is attached to the Medical Superintendent and both of them together work in collaboration for the well being and betterment of the patients.

By observing that such arrangement should continue in future, the High Court finds that the purpose of filing the present proceedings has been served.

The Apex court was apprised that tenders to establish an online portal which will provide real-time information on mental health facilities across the country right down to the district level  have been invited by the the Central Government informed the Supreme Court on Tuesday that it has invited.

The Additional Solicitor General Madhavi Divan informed the bench comprising of the Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice JB Pardiwala that a dashboard will be there on the portal for providing real-time information regarding mental health facilities.

The ASG Divan submitted that the government of all States have been called for a demonstration which will happen in 15 days.

The portal is however going to be functional within a month.

The Apex court has asked Central government for filing an affidavit regarding the implementation of the portal.

[Gaurav Kumar Bhansal vs Union of India].

The Supreme Court bench of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and M.R. Shah today observed that mentally ill patients in mental hospitals and asylums are not getting vaccinated.

“They cannot travel or go to hospitals etc. So, you must ensure that they are vaccinated. Otherwise, there will be a large number of deaths in these establishments. We won’t give a mandamus on this, but we will say it in a way that you will do it anyway,” Justice Chandrachud stated.

The bench further directed the State of Maharashtra to discontinue the practice of shifting mentally ill patients from institutions to Beggar Homes/ Custodial Homes on the ground that it was counterproductive to Section 104 of the Mental Healthcare Act.

Earlier, the Centre and the States were directed to comply with the 2017 order after a PIL was filed in 2016 by advocate Gaurav Kumar Bansal, who appeared petitioner-in-person. The petition was filed to set up rehabilitation homes for persons living with mental illness (who have been cured, or who do not need further hospitalization, or who are homeless or are not accepted by their families).

In 2017, the matter was listed before the bench of the then CJI Jagdish Singh Khehar and Justice Chandrachud wherein the bench observed that the Union of India represented through the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Government of India, had filed an affidavit pertaining guidelines for the State Governments for setting up rehabilitation homes for persons living with mental illness. The ministry was requested to circulate the same to the relevant departments of all the State Governments and Union Territories, with a direction to implement the same at the earliest, but as far as possible within one year from the order date.

It was further directed that the State Governments and the concerned Union Territories shall file status reports to this Court immediately on the expiration of one year, but most definitely before August 1, 2018. The matter was then disposed of; however, a contempt petition was filed by advocate Gaurav Kumar Bansal challenging the non-compliance by the Centre.

Also Read: Allahabad High Court orders security for block pramukh candidate, her family for her to contest polls without fear

The matter was listed last year but was not taken up due to the pandemic. Now, the matter was listed for today, and ASG Madhvi Diwan stated that due to Covid no progress was made so, the Centre was unable to comply with earlier directions of the court. She submitted that a letter was issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment to convene a meeting on the coming 12th of July and therefore requested 3-4 days for presenting a fresh status report after the date of the meeting. The bench observed that there were certain discrepancies between the   Task   Force Report and the data which has been submitted by the   States/Union   Territories.

Therefore, the Bench directed the State/Union Territories to extend their cooperation in the matter and to ensure that the discrepancies between the  Task  Force Report and the data which has been submitted by the States/Union Territories be resolved and a status report be filed on implementation of directions with regard to halfway homes.

The matter is listed for July 27.

The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Police to take a 32-years-old, physically violent Schizophrenia patient to the Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences under Section 100 (responsibilities of other agencies) of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017. 

A single-judge bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh noted, “the son of the petitioner also needs to be placed under proper care and treatment, in order to ensure that he does not cause any further physical or mental damage to either of his parents and also to ensure that his own mental condition improves.

The writ petition has been filed by the mother of a physically violent 32 years old Schizophrenia patient seeking direction to provide medical treatment to her son while providing adequate police protection/assistance to the doctors.

The petitioner has stated that her son was diagnosed with `Schizophrenia’. Owing to the son’s mental condition, he would get aggressive towards his parents and also exhibit violent behaviour. He is further stated to have severely injured them on some occasions.

Advocate Tushar Sanu, appearing for the IHBAS, submitted that so long as the patient is brought to their facility, the IHBAS facility would take care of him.

Whereas, the bench directed the Delhi Police to ensure that the petitioner’s son, “…is taken to IHBAS facility and placed under their care, today itself, under police protection, in terms of section 100 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017.”

Read Also: Allahabad HC directs Uttar Pradesh govt to ensure availability of Covid-19 vaccine within 3-4 months

The bench further directed, “Upon the Petitioner’s son reaching the IHBAS facility, the required protocols, in respect of his physical and mental conditions, shall be followed. COVID-19 testing shall also be conducted on him. Further, if the RT-PCR test is conducted upon the Petitioner’s son to determine the same, until the results come out, he shall be kept in the isolation ward.”

In addition to this, the bench has directed that the petitioner’s son will remain in care and treatment of IHBAS, and a report shall be filed at least two days before the next date of hearing.

The bench has listed the matter for further hearing on May 21.

The Delhi High Court on Friday has sought the response of the Delhi Government on a plea seeking directions for setting up the State Mental Health Authority (SMHA) and the Mental Health Review Board (MHRB) for Delhi in compliance with the obligations under the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017. 

A single-judge bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh hasn’t issued any formal notice but has sought the response of the Government of NCT of Delhi, through the Department of Health & Family Welfare. The court would hear the matter next on July 22, 2021. 

The petitioner has alleged that he had suffered a gross breach of his right to confidentiality protected under section 23 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 as well as his fundamental right to confidentiality and protection of personal information guaranteed under article 21 of the Constitution, causing him immense trauma and distress.  

He said, thereafter, he made complaints dated August 6, 2020 and September 16, 2020, to respondent No. 3 in terms of section 28 of the Act. The respondent hospital, however, sent a joint reply to the petitioner on October 5, 2020, refusing to initiate proceedings under the act. Being highly aggrieved with this response, he then sought to approach the MHRB, which is the authority of the second instance.

However, on account of the govt of NCT and State Mental Health Authority failure to implement the 2017 Act, the State authority set up under the repealed Mental Health Act, 1987, continues to operate as the SMHA for Delhi under the 2017 Act, as well as the MHRB, which is entirely contrary to the scheme of the Act. This is despite the mandate on the govt of NCT to set up the SMHA within nine months of the 2017 Act receiving Presidential assent, and which it did on April 7, 2017.

Read Also: Supreme Court overturns order of Madras HC bench, restores single judge order in property case

“I a complete contrast to the 1987 Act, the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 provides for an expanded and balanced judicial, administrative, and medical representation in SMHA and MHRB and most importantly, also provides for the representation of persons who have or have had mental illnesses as members. There is limited public information available with regard to the membership of the SMHA and MHRB,” said the plea. 

The Delhi High Court on Monday directed the Centre to submit its response on a Public Interest Litigation seeking regulations for the maintenance of minimum standards in mental health establishments.

A divisional bench comprising Chief Justice D.N. Patel and Justice Prateek Jalan slammed the Centre over the delay in issuing the regulation asking why are you taking such a long time in issuing “Minimum Standards for Different Categories of Mental Health Establishments” and “Regulations on Advance Directive.”

The petition has been filed by Advocate and Mental Health Activist Gaurav Kumar Bansal seeking framing of regulations for maintaining the minimum standards in mental health establishments under the Mental Healthcare Act.

Earlier, in a similar petition, the High Court had directed the Central Government to treat the petition as a representation and take a decision over the issue as expeditiously as possible.

The Central Government submitted that the draft is ready and the same would be published as the draft minimum standards is finalised.

Also Read:Delhi High Court slams CBSE for treating students like enemies

The petition has stated, “Since till date, government has neither issued any notification prescribing minimum standards for such establishments nor has clarified whether such establishments shall be treated as mental health establishments, persons with mental illness are finding it difficult to approach such entities.”

The bench has listed the matter for further hearing on February 5.