Latest news with #MentalHealthcareAct
Time of India
2 days ago
- General
- Time of India
UT holds meeting to reconsider security deposit for group home admissions
Chandigarh: In the wake of Punjab and Haryana High Court directions, the Chandigarh administration has called a meeting of the governing body of the UTTHAAN Society of the group home in Sector 31, on June 13. The governing body meeting, to be chaired by the UT chief secretary, will address the issue of the exorbitant security deposit. Terming the security deposit of Rs 20 lakh for admission to the group home for mental health patients as "exorbitant," the Punjab and Haryana high court, on May 19, directed the Chandigarh administration to reconsider it. The bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel instructed the administration to "apply its mind on the aspect of the quantum of security amount of Rs 20 lakh, which deprives admission into the said mental illness home even to deserving mental health patients merely because of a paucity of funds. " The court observed, "After hearing learned counsel for the rival parties, especially on the question of the quantum of security deposit of Rs 20 lakh required for admission of mental health patients in Group Utthaan Society and testing the same on the anvil of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, particularly sections 18, 19, 20, and 21 of the Act, mandating every person suffering from mental illness to be treated with dignity, reasonableness, and without any discrimination, the quantum of security deposit of Rs 20 lakh is exorbitant. " The court directed the governing body to hold an emergent meeting to reconsider the aspect of the deposit of Rs 20 lakh as security, which is unaffordable for several genuine mental health patients. MSID:: 121601834 413 |
Time of India
3 days ago
- Health
- Time of India
60-day deadline: Punjab races against time to enforce mental healthcare law after HC rap
Chandigarh: After an eight-year delay, Punjab govt has finally accelerated efforts to implement Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, following stern directions from the Punjab and Haryana high court. The move comes as a long overdue response to mounting pressure from legal, medical, and civil society quarters over the lack of action on the progressive mental health legislation. The high court recently expressed concern over the non-implementation of the act, instructing Punjab to notify all rules within 60 days and ensure full compliance with the statute's mandatory provisions. Punjab set up a state mental health authority (SMHA) in 2018 and notified the State Mental Healthcare (Standards of Care) Rules in 2019, but effective enforcement remains conspicuously absent. The act mandates that every person has the right to access mental healthcare and treatment from government-run or funded services. These services must be affordable, of good quality, and available without discrimination. In a renewed push, the state has now begun drafting revised rules that reframe drug addiction as a mental health condition rather than a criminal offence — marking a significant shift from punitive to rehabilitative care. These reforms aim to guarantee patient rights, provide ethical and standardised treatment, and promote recovery with dignity. Punjab health minister Dr Balbir Singh stated that efforts are being made towards enforcement of the act. "A draft is ready, and we are consulting with stakeholders. The focus is on treating drug addiction as a health issue, not a criminal one," he said. Health experts, including members of the Indian Psychiatric Society (IPS), have long criticised the current de-addiction model in the state as outdated and counterproductive. In recent submissions, IPS members underscored the urgent need for evidence-based treatments, such as the routine use of buprenorphine, and insisted that addiction services be governed strictly under the Mental Healthcare Act, not the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The society has called for the empowerment of mental health review boards to oversee psychiatric care and ensure due process in any disciplinary matters concerning psychiatrists. These boards, they argue, are essential to upholding the rights-based framework of the act. Echoing these concerns, the Association of Psychiatrists has urged the govt to align all de-addiction protocols with the act, arguing that comprehensive and humane care is impossible without legislative compliance. Court Seeks Report In the last court hearing, petitioner Aditya Vikram Rametra submitted a detailed set of points aimed at realising the objectives of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017. These include the provision of basic and emergency mental healthcare at all community health centres, notification of an essential drug list, budgetary allocations for implementation, establishment of halfway homes and group homes, sensitisation and training for police officers and public officials, emergency mental health training for jail and public healthcare medical staff, collaboration with higher education institutions for training and awareness programmes, and online registration of mental health establishments. The court directed the state to consider these points seriously and submit a comprehensive status report by the next hearing on July 24.
NDTV
22-05-2025
- Health
- NDTV
"Can't Be Mute Spectators": Court Appoints Daughters As Guardians Of Bedridden Man
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has appointed two daughters as guardians of their 73-year-old bedridden father, who suffered a brain injury during a cardiac arrest, noting that he was unable to take care of himself or his property. A bench of Justice Abhay Ahuja, in its order of May 8, a copy of which was made available on Wednesday, said courts cannot remain a mute spectator to such situations. The high court, while appointing the two daughters as guardians of their father, noted that the man was suffering from mental illness and was a "person in a state of lunacy who is incapable of taking care of himself or managing his property". "The higher courts of our country exercise the 'parens patriae' jurisdiction (legal protector of citizens unable to protect themselves) as they cannot be mute spectators to a real life situation of the nature before this Court," Justice Ahuja said. As per the plea, the senior citizen suffered a brain injury in 2024, resulting in deprivation of oxygen and blood supply, during a cardiac arrest. As a consequence, he has been in a semi-conscious and incapacitated state and is bedridden till date. The petition sought HC to appoint the two daughters as guardians of their father, as he is incapable of communication and is not even able to take care of his basic personal needs. The petition was initially filed under the Guardian and Wards Act, by which a guardian can be appointed for the welfare of a minor alone. The plea was later amended and sought for the daughters to be appointed as guardians of the senior citizen under Clause XVII of the Letters Patent. Under Clause XVII of the Letters Patent, the high court has the power and authority with regard to the person and estate of "infants, idiots and lunatics". A Letters Patent is a specific law under which an HC derives its subordinate piece of legislation and is a special law which prevails over the general law. The high court said under the Mental Healthcare Act, mental illness means a substantial disorder of thinking, orientation that grossly impairs judgment and the ability to meet with the ordinary demands of life. The court in its order noted that the man was unable to understand or take informed decisions, and that he requires constant care and attention. The bench noted that this was definitely not a case of mental retardation. "However, it can be said that this is a case of mental illness although the same may have arisen as a result of a cardiac arrest," HC said. "Lunacy refers to unsoundness of mind sufficient to incapacitate a person from civil transactions. It can also refer to a mental disorder as described in the definition of mental illness," Justice Ahuja said. Such mental illness where the person is incapable of taking care of himself or managing his assets, can be said to be a "state of lunacy" and hence under the Letters Patent, the high court would have authority and jurisdiction with respect to the person and the estate of such a "lunatic", HC said.
Time of India
21-05-2025
- General
- Time of India
UT's thinking behind Group Home high deposit: ‘Parent will abandon kids after admission'
Chandigarh: "Parents would abandon their children after getting them admitted to the Group Home for persons with mental health issues" – that was the reasoning behind the Chandigarh administration's decision to fix the "exorbitant" security deposit of Rs 20 lakh, a mandatory condition for getting admission to the Group Home, Sector 31. As per the file noting and internal discussions within the administration that preceded the decision of fixing the security deposit at Rs 20 lakh, the contention of the social welfare department was, "If somehow any parents/guardians fail to pay the monthly deposit or surrender/leave their ward, the department will not be in a position to sustain the group home efficiently." The department further contended this would put the whole burden of the home on those who are paying their monthly instalments regularly. The department, justifying the Rs 20 lakh security deposit, reasoned, "In case the accommodation charges are not charged from the resident of the Group Home, then the fixed charges such as food, electricity, water, and some medicines will remain payable, which amounts to Rs 20,000 per month, and the yearly expenditure calculates at Rs 2.4 lakh. Accordingly, the expenditure for the period of 10 years amounts to Rs 24 lakh. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Tukarkan Bitcoin dan Ethereum - Tanpa Dompet Diperlukan! IC Markets MULAI SEKARANG Undo Hence, the security deposit requirement may at the most be reduced to Rs 20 lakh for the efficient functioning of the Group Home." A parent, requesting anonymity, described the assumption as "perverse" and "lacking any sense of empathy with the parents and guardians" who were struggling for the past seven years for the establishment of the Group Home. Another parent said the UT administration was blindly presuming every applicant to be a "wilful defaulter." "Further, the UT administration is misleading the public by calling the Rs 20 lakh a security deposit. It is a 'lump sum down-payment for abandonment by the rich,' as wrongly conceived by the UT administration," said a parent. On Tuesday, terming the security deposit of Rs 20 lakh for admission to the Group Home as "exorbitant", the Punjab and Haryana high court directed the Chandigarh administration to reconsider it. The bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel instructed the administration to "apply its mind on the aspect of the quantum of security amount of Rs 20 lakh, which deprives admission into the said Mental Illness Home even to deserving mental health patients merely because of a paucity of funds. " The court observed, "After hearing learned counsel for the rival parties, especially on the question of the quantum of security deposit of Rs 20 lakh required for admission of mental health patients in Group Utthaan Society and testing the same on the anvil of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, particularly Sections 18, 19, 20, and 21 of the Act, mandating every person suffering from mental illness to be treated with dignity, reasonableness, and without any discrimination, the quantum of security deposit of Rs 20 lakh is exorbitant. " The court directed the governing body to hold an emergent meeting to reconsider the aspect of the deposit of Rs 20 lakh as security, which is unaffordable for several genuine mental health patients. MSID:: 121321640 413 |
Hindustan Times
21-05-2025
- Health
- Hindustan Times
HC appoints daughters as guardians of bedridden man; says court cannot remain mute spectator
Mumbai, The Bombay High Court has appointed two daughters as guardians of their 73-year-old bedridden father, who suffered a brain injury during a cardiac arrest, noting that he was unable to take care of himself or his property. A bench of Justice Abhay Ahuja, in its order of May 8, a copy of which was made available on Wednesday, said courts cannot remain a mute spectator to such situations. The high court, while appointing the two daughters as guardians of their father, noted that the man was suffering from mental illness and was a 'person in a state of lunacy who is incapable of taking care of himself or managing his property'. 'The higher courts of our country exercise the 'parens patriae' jurisdiction as they cannot be mute spectators to a real life situation of the nature before this Court,' Justice Ahuja said. As per the plea, the senior citizen suffered a brain injury in 2024, resulting in deprivation of oxygen and blood supply, during a cardiac arrest. As a consequence, he has been in a semi-conscious and incapacitated state and is bedridden till date. The petition sought HC to appoint the two daughters as guardians of their father, as he is incapable of communication and is not even able to take care of his basic personal needs. The petition was initially filed under the Guardian and Wards Act, by which a guardian can be appointed for the welfare of a minor alone. The plea was later amended and sought for the daughters to be appointed as guardians of the senior citizen under Clause XVII of the Letters Patent. Under Clause XVII of the Letters Patent, the high court has the power and authority with regard to the person and estate of 'infants, idiots and lunatics'. A Letters Patent is a specific law under which an HC derives its subordinate piece of legislation and is a special law which prevails over the general law. The high court said under the Mental Healthcare Act, mental illness means a substantial disorder of thinking, orientation that grossly impairs judgment and the ability to meet with the ordinary demands of life. The court in its order noted that the man was unable to understand or take informed decisions, and that he requires constant care and attention. The bench noted that this was definitely not a case of mental retardation. 'However, it can be said that this is a case of mental illness although the same may have arisen as a result of a cardiac arrest,' HC said. 'Lunacy refers to unsoundness of mind sufficient to incapacitate a person from civil transactions. It can also refer to a mental disorder as described in the definition of mental illness,' Justice Ahuja said. Such mental illness where the person is incapable of taking care of himself or managing his assets, can be said to be a 'state of lunacy' and hence under the Letters Patent, the high court would have authority and jurisdiction with respect to the person and the estate of such a 'lunatic', HC said.
