Kerala High Court Directs State Police Chief To Sensitize Police Personnel To Mental Healthcare Act

The Kerala High Court on Monday directed the State Police Chief to ensure that Police Officers are familiar with the provisions of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 so that they can sensitively deal with cases involving mentally ill persons.

A single bench of Justice K Babu considered the suggestion made by the Amicus Curiae in the matter to direct the competent authorities to make sure that Police Officers are given proper training in the Mental Healthcare Act.

“The State Police Chief will ensure that the Police Officers in all the Police Stations in the State are sensitized to the relevant provisions of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 so as to ensure proper, prompt and effective compliance with the provisions, which would pave the way for ameliorating the grievances of the mentally ill persons,” the Court directed.

The Court was considering a challenge by an accused who had filed an application under Section 328 of the Cr.P.C. (procedure in case of accused being a lunatic) before the Special Court contending that he was incapacitated by mental illness to make his defence. However, the Special Court held that he was not of unsound mind and denied relief. The Petitioner had thus approached the High Court challenging this order.

The Petitioner had been accused of offences under Section 377 of IPC and Sections 9(m) & 9(n) r/w Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The Petitioner had filed the application under Section 328 Cr.P.C. stating that he was suffering from Bi-polar Disorder, depression and suicidal tendency. The Petitioner also submitted that he was undergoing treatment for demyelination. The Petitioner had also produced medical records to back his claims.

The Special Judge however, concluded that the Petitioner failed to establish that he is of unsound mind and that there was no requirement to conduct an inquiry under Section 328 of Cr.P.C.

The counsel for the Petitioner argued that the Court did not consider the medical records produced by the Petitioner to prove his mental illness.

The Amicus Curiae appointed in the matter submitted that under Section 105 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, it was mandatory for the Court to refer the matter for scrutiny of the Board concerned. Based on the opinion of the Board the Court ought to have decided whether the trial could be proceeded with or not.

Agreeing with the submissions of the Amicus Curiae, the Court held that the Special Judge had failed to follow the mandate under Section 105 of the Mental Healthcare Act and the provisions of Sections 328 and 329 of Cr.P.C.

“Under Sections 328 and 329 of Cr.P.C. the Sessions judge had the onerous responsibility to hold an inquiry regarding the soundness of the accused’s mind and his consequent incapacity to make his defence. Under Section 105 of the Mental Healthcare Act, if any proof of mental illness is produced and is challenged by the other side, the Court shall refer the same for further scrutiny to the Board concerned, and the Board shall, after examination of the person alleged to have a mental illness, either by itself or through a committee of experts, submit its opinion to the Court. The opinion of the Board referred to in Section 105 of the Mental Healthcare Act shall form the foundation of the decision of the Court on the question whether the trial in respect of the person could be proceeded with or not. “

Accordingly, the Court directed the trial judge to reconsider the matter and proceed in accordance with the procedure prescribed under law.

Adv. Joseph George appeared for the petitioner, Public Prosecutor G Sudheer appeared for the State and Adv. Ramkumar Nambiar was the Amicus Curiae in the matter.

Case Title: XXX V. State of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 292

Click here to read/download judgment