2 days ago
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
