Mental Healthcare Act Has Retrospective Effect: Kerala HC Quashes Criminal Case Against Woman Accused Of Attempting Suicide

The case involved a woman, the wife of a former Member of the Legislative Assembly, who faced severe mental distress after edited audio recordings of her private conversations were maliciously circulated by political opponents during her husband’s election campaign. These defamatory clips not only tarnished her reputation but also negatively impacted her husband's electoral chances. In response to the overwhelming stress, she attempted suicide by overdosing on sleeping pills in 2016.

Historically, under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, attempting to die by suicide was classified as a criminal offense. However, this changed with the introduction of Section 115 of the Mental Healthcare Act, which effectively decriminalized such attempts.

A Bench of Justice CS Sudha emphasized that the 2017 Act represents a progressive legal framework aimed at protecting and rehabilitating individuals facing mental health challenges. She asserted that the law's benefits should not be confined to its effective date, thereby granting it retrospective applicability.

Following her suicide attempt, a criminal case was filed against her under Section 309 of the now-repealed IPC. The woman sought relief from the court, arguing that continuing the criminal prosecution would violate her rights under the Mental Health Act.

The Court said, "Where a law is enacted for the benefit of a community as a whole, even in the absence of a provision (conferring retrospective application), the statute may be held to be retrospective in nature. There can be no doubt that MHA is a beneficial legislation and so the benefits contained therein require to be extended to the entire class of persons for whose benefit it was enacted. As it is a beneficial piece of legislation, a retrospective effect can be given to the same."

The Court also criticized the State for not having withdrawn the criminal charges against the woman sooner. The Court remarked, "It is quite disturbing to note that in spite of the obligation of the State made clear under sub-section (2) of Section 115 to provide care, treatment and rehabilitation to a person who attempted to commit suicide under severe stress, the State thought it fit to prosecute the petitioner for reasons best known to it."

Advocate CP Udayabhanu appeared for the Petitioner and Senior Public Prosecutor CK Suresh appeared for the Respondent.

The Public Prosecutor countered this argument, claiming that the Mental Healthcare Act only came into effect on July 7, 2018, long after the suicide attempt, and insisted that the woman should therefore face prosecution under the IPC.

The High Court acknowledged the general legal principle that laws typically do not have retrospective effect—that is, a law enacted today does not apply to past events. However, it highlighted that this principle does not hold when the law in question is one that benefits individuals.

Citing Supreme Court precedents, including the case of Rattan Lal v State of Punjab (AIR 1965 SC 444), the High Court stated that when legislation provides benefits without causing harm to others or the public, it is reasonable to interpret such laws as having retrospective applicability. The Court noted, "The presumption would be that such a legislation, giving a purposive construction, would warrant it to be given a retrospective effect."

Consequently, the High Court quashed the criminal case against the petitioner, concluding that it would be an absolute waste of time and an abuse of the process of the court to proceed with the case.

Cause Title: X v. State of Kerala & Anr., [2024:KER:77662]

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates CP Udayabhanu, Navaneeth N Nath, PU Pratheesh Kumar, Rassal Janardhanan A, Abhishek M Kunnathu, and SK Premraj