 when dealing with claims of mental illness.){kind=link}
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court recently delivered a significant judgment emphasizing the procedural requirements outlined in the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 (MHA) when dealing with claims of mental illness. In a case where a petitioner challenged a Trial Court’s order scheduling a sentence without addressing relevant applications under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (POA) and Section 105 of the MHA, the High Court, presided over by Justice Jyoti Singh, asserted the imperative nature of following the prescribed procedure under Section 105.
The court underscored that Section 105 of the MHA confers a statutory right upon individuals claiming mental illness to seek a case reference to the Board during any judicial process. This provision, encapsulated within the MHA’s rights-based framework, mandates the Competent Court to follow a specific procedure when presented with evidence of mental illness. The court observed that the use of the term ‘shall’ in Section 105 signifies the legislative intent, making the prescribed procedure obligatory and leaving no room for exceptions or discretion.
The petitioner, represented by Advocate Madhav Khurana, filed the petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, challenging the Trial Court’s order. The contention was that the Trial Court scheduled the sentence without addressing applications under the POA and Section 105 of the MHA. The petitioner sought direction for referral to the Probation Officer and the Medical Board before sentencing.
The court acknowledged that the MHA, enacted to align with India’s international commitments, holds a transformative potential. It emphasized the primary objective of ensuring healthcare, treatment, and rehabilitation for individuals with mental illness while safeguarding their rights. The court pointed out that Section 105 specifically addresses inquiries concerning individuals alleged to have a mental illness, establishing a statutory right for such individuals to seek reference to the Board.
In this case, the petitioner had applied under Section 105, claiming mental illness and seeking a reference to the Board for assessment. However, the Trial Court deferred a decision on the application and scheduled the case for a sentence order. The High Court deemed this practice inconsistent with the MHA’s mandate and directed the Trial Court to decide the petitioner’s Section 105 application before proceeding with the sentence order.
The Court held that,
“The inexorable conclusion therefore is that if a claim of mental illness is made before the Court, whether orally or by an application, with some supporting material that the person is suffering from mental illness, an onerous responsibility is cast on the Competent Court to follow the procedure laid down in Section 105 of the 2017 Act.”
The judgment underscores the stringent adherence to the procedural requirements laid down in Section 105 of the MHA when confronted with claims of mental illness during judicial proceedings, thereby ensuring the protection of individuals’ rights and the fulfilment of the statute’s objectives.