[Habeas Corpus] Court Cannot Force Medical Tests To Ascertain Mental Stability Of Corpus: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court, in a significant dissenting opinion from a previous order issued by the Coordinate Bench, has ruled that individuals under a Habeas Corpus petition cannot be compelled to undergo medical tests to determine their mental stability.

The Division Bench comprising Justice A. I. Supehia and Justice Gita Gopi held, “In our considered opinion, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 cannot be forcefully subjected to medical test in order to ascertain their mental stability (ability) that too in habeas corpus petition on vague allegations that they are practicing black magic.”

“We have ascertained the wishes of respondent Nos.3 and 4. We have also personally interacted to them. We do not find that both the respondent Nos.3 and 4 suffer from any type of mental disorder or disability. On the contrary, the respondent no.3, who is the daughter of the petitioner no.2 has cleared her graduation with distinction. The practicing of black magic can be a personal choice, and this Court cannot delve into such issues in a habeas corpus petition,” the bench added.

This decision came in response to a petition seeking the release of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, i.e. Pranali Shriram Bhatt and her daughter, Drashti Shriram Bhatt, who were allegedly unlawfully detained.

The case of the petitioners was that the petitioners, who were the father and husband of Respondent no. 3, Pranali, alleged that Respondents No. 5 to 7 were practicing black magic on Pranali and her daughter, Drashti (Respondent no. 4), and had detained them illegally.

Thus, the petitioners filed the habeas corpus petition seeking the Court to issue an order instructing Respondents No. 5 to 7 to bring Respondents No. 3 and 4 before the Court, thereby releasing them from the alleged unlawful detention by the mentioned Respondents. Furthermore, the petitioners sought an order instructing Respondents No. 1 and 2 i.e., the State and the Commissioner Of Police to produce Pranali and her daughter before the Superintendent of the Hospital of Mental Health Karelibaug, Vadodara for medical assessment and treatment.

The petitioners expressed concerns that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 might not be in a suitable mental state to appear in person before this Court. As a result, they requested that the individuals be examined by medical professionals through the Police Authorities before their appearance in the Court.

The Court took note of several orders issued by a Bench of equal authority, which had sought the presence of the third and fourth respondents. Additionally, the Court observed that the Coordinate Bench, in its Order dated September 27, 2023, had highlighted the content of a pen drive presented before it as deeply unsettling and alarming. The Court believed that this content could not be ignored and, as a result, deemed it essential to assess the medical condition of both individuals.

Subsequently, recognizing that both respondents were of legal age, the Court ordered the most senior Medical Officer in the Department of Psychiatry at SSG Hospital, Vadodara, to visit the respondents' residence at least twice a day. The Medical Officer would make additional visits if necessary, with the Police instructed to provide any required assistance.

During the court hearing, both the respondents no. 3 and 4, were present and openly admitted that the entire dispute revolved around the claim to the property where they resided. The petitioners sought to vacate the property as it had been acquired for redevelopment by a builder, a move the respondents opposed vehemently.

It was asserted by Dhrashti (Respondent No. 4) that her mother had purchased the property with her own resources. She alleged that her father had abandoned her and her mother in 2018, and they were self-sufficient ever since.

Both individuals informed the court that, in compliance with a previous order from the Co-ordinate Bench, they were taken to the police station and later to the S.S.G. Hospital, Vadodara, but were harassed as no medical examinations were conducted.

Crucially, they vehemently opposed undergoing mental fitness assessments, asserting their mental stability and ability to make sound decisions. They protested against any attempts to subject them to such tests.

The court observed, “Today, both the corpuses have specifically denied that they should not be subjected to medical tests assessing their mental fitness, and both of them are mentally stable and can take conscious decisions. They are also taken to the police station and thereafter to the SSG hospital in the night, and were made to wait, and ultimately no test was undertaken.”

Upon understanding that respondent Nos.3 and 4 were unwilling to accompany the petitioners and wanted to continue residing at their current address, the court recognized their right to choose where they lived.

The court stated unequivocally, “On being ascertained that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 would not like to accompany the petitioners and they would like to reside at the place, where they are presently residing at the given address, we cannot compel them to reside with or accompany the petitioners against their wishes. Neither we can direct them to be subjected to medical tests ascertaining their mental health.”

Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed based on these grounds.