Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Order Of Legal Services Authority Referring Litigant For 'Psychiatric Help' Following Offensive Letter To Judges

A single judge bench of Justice Amrita Sinha observed:

“Out of despair and frustration on account of delayed disposal of his legal proceedings, the petitioner shot letters to the high ranking officials and also to the Hon’ble judges of this Court. The contents of the letters are undoubtedly derogatory, offensive, nasty, false and leaves a bad taste in the mouth but the same does not have anything to do with the mental health of the petitioner.”

It was the case of the petitioner that by the order dated 11th December, 2018, Member Secretary to SLSA West Bengal referred him for psychiatric treatment on the ground that he was found to be showing strong symptoms of mental illness.

The petitioner challenged the impugned order on the ground that Member Secretary or Executive Chairman, SLSA have no jurisdiction to comment upon the mental health of any person.

It was contended by the petitioner that despite his objection to impugned order, he was forcefully arrested from the High Court compound and kept in custody for several hours and thereafter produced before a psychiatrist on 8th January, 2019.

It was submitted that the details of the personal statement of the petitioner as recorded by the doctor clearly suggested that the petitioner is in a fit state of mind, does not suffer from any mental illness and not in need of any psychiatric help.

The petitioner further argued that the respondent authorities misused their official position and acted in violation of the fundamental right and the right to privacy and the right to live with dignity. It was also argued that the act of the Member Secretary, SLSA was contrary to the principles of natural justice as no opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend himself or to disprove the allegation made against him in the impugned order.

The counsel appearing for the Member Secretary, SLSA submitted that the petitioner has written letters to various authorities including Government of India, CBI, Governor, High Court judges etc. which were absolutely false, imaginary and harassive. It was further contended that the contents of the letter written by the petitioner suggest that he is suffering from some type of mental disorder and, accordingly, for the benefit of the petitioner, he was referred for psychiatric help and there was no mala fide intention to harass or malign the petitioner in any manner.

While discussing the various provisions of Mental Health Act, 2017, the court noted that apart from the allegations levelled by the petitioner in his written communications against several high ranking officers including Judges, there is nothing on record which conclusively proves or even remotely suggests that the petitioner is suffering from mental illness and he requires psychiatric help.

The court stated:

“A person cannot be said to be suffering from mental illness only upon judging his behaviour or after going through certain communications made by the said person.”

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner faced financial loss in his business and had to file several litigations before the Court. As there has been delay in disposal of his cases, he became a bit disoriented which resulted in writing the said communications and he did not have any intention to malign or disrepute any Judge or the judiciary as a whole.

The court highlighted:

“It does not appear that the communications have been made by any person suffering from any form of mental illness requiring medical assistance. Possibly, it may be for this reason that the doctor who examined the petitioner on the first day failed to notice anything significant with regard to the mental ill health of the petitioner and advised routine tests to be done.”

The court noted that the said communications made by the petitioner were a dirty ploy to draw attention of the Court for early disposal of the pending legal proceedings.

The court further observed:

“The judicial officer mistook the said communications as sign of mental illness. Since it is not proper for a judicial officer to comment upon the mental illness of a litigant, accordingly, the litigant was referred to a psychiatric. For implementation of the order of SLSA, the police may have applied force to take the petitioner all the way from the High Court to the psychiatric institute, but the allegation of the petitioner that he was arrested and taken into custody cannot be substantiated.”

Hence, the court set aside the impugned order of the Member Secretary, SLSA and rejected the petitioner’s prayer for compensation.

However, the court strictly warned and cautioned the petitioner not to repeat such behaviour in future, failing which serious consequences would follow.

Case Title: Akhil Bandhu Saha v. The Member Secretary, State Legal Services Authority & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 47

Coram: Justice Amrita Sinha

Click Here to Read/Download Judgment