'Regrettable State of Affairs': Bombay High Court Slams Maharashtra's State Mental Health Authority For Inaction

On Friday, the counsel representing the State placed on record minutes of the meeting held by the SMHA in September, in compliance with the court's earlier order.

A division bench of Justices Nitin Jamdar and Gauri Godse noted that newly selected members were "welcomed with flowers" and merely five items were discussed in a one-and-half-page summary before the court. "We had expected the Authority to deal with wider issues emerging from enforcing the Act of 2017. There is no reference to the same.......the manner in which the meeting was conducted, to use the mildest expression, is superficial, " the bench observed. 

Issues discussed included Additional Chief Secretary giving directions to set up a proposal to the Social Justice Department for the discharge of indoor patients with mental illnesses and a direction to set up a bank account for the authority. "It is not explained how this Authority works without a bank account or statutory Fund required for its functioning," the bench said. 

The SMHA must meet at least four times a year according to Section 26 of the Act but the authority wasn't even constituted when the PIL was taken up in August this year. Even after that, the SMHA met only once on September 2, 2022, the order notes.

The court there ordered the CEO of SMHA to submit details as to when was the fund created, the sum available in it, and whether it is adequate; to prepare a proposal for a work programme as per Section 53(1)(c) of the Act and a statement of revenue and expenditure along with details of the budget. Further the court has sought details of all activities undertaken by the SMHA previously and the schedule of programmes of work to be undertaken. 

Significantly, the court sought to know how the Maharashtra government plans to implement Section 54 of the Act mandating the appointment of a manager to take charge of a mentally ill person's property.

Well-known psychiatrist Dr Harish Shetty is the PIL petitioner alleging that despite SC orders, the Act is not being properly implemented. The bench noted that no action was taken in the meeting regarding the gave case of a woman who wrongly spent several years in a psychiatric hospital. 

On Friday, the bench reiterated that the state authority was duty-bound to register all psychiatric health establishments under section 55 of the Act except those maintained online. Moreover, the authority was also supposed to develop quality and norms for mental health establishments in the State, supervise mental health establishments, and receive complaints about deficiencies.

"The minutes refer to none of this," the bench observed.

It directed the Secretary, Department of Public Health, State of Maharashtra to place on record details of tasks so performed by the appropriate Government as per the above-mentioned enactment since 2017. "The Secretary will also place on record a proposal giving details of what steps the State Government intended to take in respect of the duties mentioned above with a timeline thereto. The Secretary will also place on record whether the State Government has called for a report from the Authority under Rule 10," the court added. 

The matter will now be taken up on December 21.

Case Title: Dr. Harish Shetty versus The State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 472  

Click Here To Read/Download Order