Existence Of Mental Illness Alone Doesn't Imply That A Person Is Of Unsound Mind Unless Declared By Court: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court has set aside the impugned orders of the Metropolitan Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge in a case relating to the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 (Act, 2017). The Court said that the determination of a person's mental illness alone does not imply that he is of unsound mind unless declared by the competent court.
A Single Bench of Justice Amit Sharma held, "So far as the contention of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent with regard to the fact that the petitioner did not raise the issue of his mental illness to in any other prior proceedings pending before the parties cannot act as an estoppel with regard to his statutory right as provided for in the said Act. ... It is further pertinent to note Section 3(5) of the said Act states that determination of a person's mental illness alone shall not imply or be assumed that the person is of unsound mind unless he has been declared as such by a competent Court. Thus, determination in terms of Section 105 of the said Act cannot be prejudicial to the interest of respondent."
Senior Advocate Viraj R. Datar appeared for Petitioner and Advocate Rajiv Bajaj appeared for the Respondent.
In this case, a petition was filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) wherein the court directed the Petitioner to pay the Respondent, a sum per month till the pendency of the case. The Petitioner thereafter filed an appeal against the order and contended that he suffers from Bipolar Affective Disorder, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, depression and anxiety and therefore be exempted from appearing before the court. The Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed his petition and hence the petitioner filed an appeal before Additional Sessions Judge, who also dismissed the appeal.
The High Court noted that the issue was whether the powers under Section 105 should have been exercised and not with respect to consequences on the merits of the case before the Court, in case, the petitioner was diagnosed with suffering from mental illness as provided under Section 2(s) of the Act, 2017.
In this context, the Court noted, “In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 is a special Act and by virtue of Section 120 of the said Act, the same has been given an overriding effect with respect to any other law for the time being in force. Further a bare reading of Section 105 of the said Act reflects that the words used in the said Section are “the Court shall refer the same for further scrutiny” which is mandatory in nature. Given the purpose and nature of the enactment the word ‘shall’ in the context of the said Act can be construed to be mandatory”.
The Court said that Section 105 of Act, 2017 provides a statutory right in favour of any person who claims to have mental illness under Section 2(s). The provision therefore, puts an obligation upon the court to refer such claim, if made during judicial proceedings, to the concerned board, and cannot assess the validity of such claim before making said reference. The Act further mandates certain government agencies to take certain steps with respect to persons who are suffering from mental illness.
“Section 105 of the said Act is part of Chapter XIII, which deals with the responsibilities of certain agencies including Police Officers, Magistrates, Prison Officials as well as State run Custodial Institution and further obligates those agencies to take certain steps with respect to person regarding whom they have reason to believe, is suffering from mental illness. 23. Section 105 of the said Act creates a right in favor of a person who claims to suffers from mental illness as defined under Section 2(s) of the said Act”, the Court observed.
Additionally, the Court emphasised that a person claiming under the Act, 2017 shall not be considered of unsound mind unless declared by a competent court and thus, the claim under Section 105 of the Act, 2017 cannot be prejudicial to the interest of the Petitioner.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned order.
Cause Title: Ankur Abbot v Ekta Abbot
