Mental Health Act 2017 Is A Beneficial Legislation, Can Be Applied Retrospectively To Extend Benefits To All: Kerala High Court

In the facts of the case, the petitioner is the wife of a former MLA, has invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court to quash final report alleging that she attempted to commit suicide in 2016, an offence punishable under Section 309 of the IPC.

Justice C S Sudha held that the Mental Health Act, 2017 being a beneficial piece of legislation should be applied retrospectively, and its advantages must be extended to all class of persons for whose benefit it was enacted. Consequently, the Court quashed the final report against the petitioner by extending the benefit of Section 115 of the Mental Health Care Act which decriminalizes the attempt to commit suicide.

Relying upon Apex Court decision in Commissioner of Income Tax-I, New Delhi v. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd (2015), the Court held thus:

“If a legislation confers benefit on some persons but without inflicting a corresponding detriment on some other person or on the public generally, and where to confer such benefit appears to have been the legislators object, then the presumption would be that such a legislation, giving a purposive construction, would warrant it to be given a retrospective effect. The doctrine of fairness is a relevant factor to construe a statute conferring a benefit in the context of it to be given a retrospective operation. Where a law is enacted for the benefit of a community as a whole, even in the absence of a provision, the statute may be held to be retrospective in nature.”

As per the facts of the case, the petitioner's edited audio clips were circulated by her husband's opponents which highly damaged his reputation and affected his election prospects. The petitioner who was under severe stress consumed a heavy dose of sleeping pills.

The petitioner relied upon Section 115 of the Mental Health Act of 2017 which decriminalizes attempt to commit suicide. It was contended that continuing criminal prosecution was an abuse of process of law.

On the other hand, the Public Prosecutor argued that the Mental Health Act came into effect from July 07, 2018 and the petitioner attempted to commit suicide in the year 2016. It was thus argued that the benefit of Section 115 which decriminalized attempt to suicide will not help the petitioner.

The Court noted that the petitioner has invoked its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, despite having a remedy available under Section 498 of the CrPC to challenge the final report against her. Since the petition was admitted as early as on 2020, the Court proceeded to consider it without relegating the petitioner to pursue the alternative remedy.

The Court observed that the Mental Health Act of 1987 was repealed by the 2017 Act to provide mental health care and services to persons suffering from mental illness and to protect their rights. It emphasized that the Mental Health Act serves as a beneficial legislation to support, rehabilitate, treat and support persons suffering from mental illnesses.

The Court referred to the decision in Rattan Lal v. State of Punjab (1965) where Apex Court extended the benefits of the Probation of Offenders Act to help a 16 year old boy. The Court observed that despite the fact that the offence was committed by the boy before the PO Act was extended to the area where the offence was committed, the Apex Court still chose to extend the benefits of the Act.

“The PO Act was not an Act whereby neither the ingredients of the offence nor the limits of sentence were disturbed, but a provision made to help the reformation of an accused through the agency of the court. It is therefore a post facto law and has retrospective operation. In considering the scope of such a provision the rule of beneficial construction as enunciated by the modern trend of judicial opinion without doing violence to the provisions of the relevant section was to be adopted", said the Court. 

As such, the Court stated that the Mental Health Act of 2017 is a beneficial legislation and Section 115 of the Act must be applied retrospectively to help and support persons like the petitioner.

The Court stated that as per Section 115 of the Act, a person who attempts to commit suicide would be presumed to be under severe stress and will not be punishable under Section 309 of the IPC.

The Court stated that prosecution has not rebutted the presumption that the petitioner was under severe stress and hence she cannot be prosecuted under Section 309 of the IPC.

“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.” added the Court.

Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed and the final report against the petitioner was quashed.

Counsel for Petitioners: Advocates C P Udayabhanu, Navaneeth.N.Nath, P.U.Pratheesh Kumar, Rassal Janardhanan A, Abhishek M. Kunnathu, S.K.Premraj

Counsel for Respondents: Senior Public Prosecutor C K Suresh

Case Number: WP(C) NO. 27794 OF 2020

Case Title: Leby Sajeendran v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 672