Courts Can Act In Best Interest Of Mentally Ill As MH Law Doesn't Define Their Wishes: Allahabad HC
Last Updated:
High Court noted that MH Act has laid down certain standards and factors to be considered while determining the "best interest" of the mentally ill person but not on wills.
Noting that no guidance exists under the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 (MH Act) as to what would constitute the 'wills and preferences" of a mentally ill person, the Allahabad High Court has said courts can exercise their parens patriae jurisdiction.
The High Court found that the MH Act had laid down certain standards and factors to be considered while determining the 'best interest" of the mentally ill person. 'However, no guidance exists as to what would constitute the 'wills and preferences' of the person. Even in the proviso to Section 14 (1), the factors to be considered for providing total support are conspicuously absent. The MH Act has no provision in respect of management of financial affairs, appointment of guardians or the manner in which the movable/immovable property of the mentally ill person is to be taken care of. Thus, there is a clear statutory vacuum," said a bench of Justices Om Prakash Shukla and Rajan Roy.
The division bench of the High Court went on to observe that the solemn nature of the said jurisdiction having been repeatedly recognized by the Supreme Court, the question as to whether it is the Board or the Appellate Authority or as to which Court has to exercise it and in what manner is one of mere procedure, so long as the 'wills and preferences" of the mentally ill person and the other factors set out in the rules are borne in mind by the Board or this Court while exercising its parens patriae jurisdiction.
Court made these observations while dealing with the case of a woman suffering from Moderate Intellectual Disability. Before the high Court, one Saurabh Mishra filed a petition challenging the decision of the -Mansik Swasthya Punarvilokan Board, Barabanki which rejected his appointment as a representative of the disabled woman rejected on the ground that he had a criminal history of two cases.
Noting that the concerned woman had no other legal heir, except the petitioner, who is her relative and a family as being the son of her real brother, the bench went on to quash the Board's order and appoint the petitioner as the nominated representative of under the MH Act, 2017 and for providing support to her under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016.
'In case, any relative/family or friend of opposite party no.4 points out that the nominated representative/petitioner is not acting in her best interest, such person will also have the locus to approach either the Board or this Court for issuance of proper direction and for removal of the petitioner", the court further ordered.
First Published:
June 10, 2025, 13:01 IST
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Suspended Haryana SMO reinstated after 57 days
The Haryana government has reinstated suspended senior medical officer (SMO), Dr Prabhu Dayal after a period of 57 days. Dr Dayal who was the nodal officer for Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (PC-PNDT) Act in Hisar was placed under suspension for 'not doing enough to stem the dip in the state's sex ratio'. A June 5 order issued by the state government said that Dr Prabhu Dayal who was placed under suspension on April 9 is reinstated in service with immediate effect without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings pending against him. On his reinstatement, Dr Dayal was posted at Civil Hospital, Hisar against a vacant post, the order said. The Haryana Civil Medical Service (HCMS) association had written to the state government seeking revocation of Dr Dayal's suspension. In a communication to the additional chief secretary, health, the HCMS association had said that Dr Dayal's suspension caused severe mental trauma and defamation not only for the doctor but for the whole HCMS cadre. 'The manner and circumstances under which Dr Dayal was suspended without preliminary inquiry or explanation is demoralising for the medical fraternity. We believe that the role of a PC-PNDT nodal officer is a challenging one and must be supported by the administration. Such a punitive action has sent a wrong message to the whole cadre and it will be very difficult to carry out the duties under PC-PNDT Act under such circumstances. This will adversely affect the programme,' said the HCMS association communication.
India Today
4 hours ago
- India Today
Bombay High Court allows abortion of 24-week pregnancy of 14-year-old rape survivor
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday permitted a 14-year-old girl from Maharashtra's Raigad to abort her pregnancy, if she so desires. The minor, a survivor of sexual assault by a man she had met on Instagram, was in the 24th week of case came to light when the girl's mother noticed that she had not menstruated for six months. A hospital visit confirmed the pregnancy, leading to the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against the Manisha Jagtap, appearing for the minor who is currently admitted to a hospital in Raigad, submitted that the girl was unwilling and unable to carry the pregnancy to full term. Under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, a pregnancy may be terminated for up to 20 weeks without court approval. Since the girl had crossed this threshold, court permission was required for the procedure. On June 6, the High Court directed the Surgeon of the Civil Hospital, Alibaug, Raigad, to set up a Medical Board to assess the minor's condition. The court also asked the Board to evaluate her mental health. The Board later submitted its report stating the girl was anemic, and the termination procedure could only be carried out after correcting her hemoglobin the matter was heard again on Tuesday, the bench interacted with the Medical Board doctors, who confirmed that the minor was now fit to undergo the procedure. The doctors also assured the court that there were no foreseeable complications from the procedure that might affect the girl's ability to conceive in the future—an aspect that had concerned the these assurances, the High Court granted permission for the termination. Additionally, it directed the trial court handling the FIR under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act to expedite the determination of interim compensation for the Watch
News18
19 hours ago
- News18
Courts Can Act In Best Interest Of Mentally Ill As MH Law Doesn't Define Their Wishes: Allahabad HC
Last Updated: High Court noted that MH Act has laid down certain standards and factors to be considered while determining the "best interest" of the mentally ill person but not on wills. Noting that no guidance exists under the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 (MH Act) as to what would constitute the 'wills and preferences" of a mentally ill person, the Allahabad High Court has said courts can exercise their parens patriae jurisdiction. The High Court found that the MH Act had laid down certain standards and factors to be considered while determining the 'best interest" of the mentally ill person. 'However, no guidance exists as to what would constitute the 'wills and preferences' of the person. Even in the proviso to Section 14 (1), the factors to be considered for providing total support are conspicuously absent. The MH Act has no provision in respect of management of financial affairs, appointment of guardians or the manner in which the movable/immovable property of the mentally ill person is to be taken care of. Thus, there is a clear statutory vacuum," said a bench of Justices Om Prakash Shukla and Rajan Roy. The division bench of the High Court went on to observe that the solemn nature of the said jurisdiction having been repeatedly recognized by the Supreme Court, the question as to whether it is the Board or the Appellate Authority or as to which Court has to exercise it and in what manner is one of mere procedure, so long as the 'wills and preferences" of the mentally ill person and the other factors set out in the rules are borne in mind by the Board or this Court while exercising its parens patriae jurisdiction. Court made these observations while dealing with the case of a woman suffering from Moderate Intellectual Disability. Before the high Court, one Saurabh Mishra filed a petition challenging the decision of the -Mansik Swasthya Punarvilokan Board, Barabanki which rejected his appointment as a representative of the disabled woman rejected on the ground that he had a criminal history of two cases. Noting that the concerned woman had no other legal heir, except the petitioner, who is her relative and a family as being the son of her real brother, the bench went on to quash the Board's order and appoint the petitioner as the nominated representative of under the MH Act, 2017 and for providing support to her under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016. 'In case, any relative/family or friend of opposite party no.4 points out that the nominated representative/petitioner is not acting in her best interest, such person will also have the locus to approach either the Board or this Court for issuance of proper direction and for removal of the petitioner", the court further ordered. First Published: June 10, 2025, 13:01 IST
