Women In Mental Care Institutions Facing Cruelties; Supreme Court Expresses 'Serious Concern'

The Supreme Court on Wednesday noted that it was a 'serious concern' that women who are institutionalised in various mental health institutions across the country face several indignities and violation of human rights.

A Bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and Hima Kohli was adjudicating upon a plea moved by Advocate Gaurav Bansal highlighting the deplorable condition of women inmates in such mental hospitals.

"Based on certain research studies conducted by NIMHANS in 2016 and the National Commission for Women (NCW) in 2020, it has been highlighted that women in mental healthcare institutions face several indignities and violation of human rights...issues flagged are of serious concern", the Court observed. 

Accordingly, the Bench directed the Union Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment to discuss the grievances raised with the concerned States during the course of its monthly monitoring meetings and accordingly ensure compliance. A status report was directed to be filed by the Centre a week before the next date of hearing which is slated to take place during the last week of December, 2021.

The petition highlighted that many such mental healthcare institutions indulge in the practice of shaving the hair of women inmates and other such exercises which compromise the dignity of women inmates. The petitioner further alleged that women inmates do not have access to basic necessities such as sanitary napkins and that there exists no specific provisions ensuring that women and children are not separated at such institutions. There also exists no mechanism to issue identity cards such as Aadhar cards to such women inmates, the plea further alleged.

During the hearing on Wednesday, Advocate Gaurav Bansal submitted before the Court that 'rehabilitation is a complex term and that relocation does not mean the same as reintegration'. He highlighted the need for State governments to adopt a 'social care model' and further contended that mere relocation violates Section 104 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017.

The Court noted on Wednesday that many States such as Uttar Pradesh had merely redesignated old age homes in 75 districts as halfway homes for mentally cured inmates and therefore it would not constitute as a valid discharge of duties. Terming such an exercise to be a merely 'lip service', the Bench opined that State governments must establish halfway homes on a more proactive basis and that mere redesignation would not imply compliance. Furthermore, the Court observed with anguish that the State of Maharashtra had earlier shifted such mentally ill cured persons to beggar homes and old age homes instead of establishing half way homes. 

Averments in the plea 

Referring to the definition of 'barrier' as enumerated under Section 2 (c) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act-2016, the plea contended that in order to rehabilitate the persons with mental illness who have been cured or need no further hospitalization or are homeless or not accepted by families, there is a dire need to remove the barrier coming in the way of their rehabilitation process.

The petitioner also referred to a study conducted by Human Rights Watch titled as 'Treated Worse than Animals – Abuses against Women and Girls with Psychosocial or Intellectual Disabilities in Institutions in India' wherein it was noted that in mental institutions, women with psychosocial or intellectual disabilities face a range of abuses, including prolonged detention, unsanitary conditions, neglect, involuntary treatment and violence. Four of the government institutions for people with intellectual or psychosocial disabilities which Human Rights Watch had visited were exceptionally overcrowded, dirty and lacked adequate sanitation.

The plea thus proceeded to list down various institutional barrier currently being faced by such women inmates which are as follows,

• Lack of Sanitary Napkins (Violation of Section 20 (2) (b) of Mental Healthcare Act-2017)

• Lack of Privacy (Violation of Section 20 (2) (c) of Mental Healthcare Act-2017)

• Illegal cutting of HAIR (Violation of Section 20 (2) (i) of Mental Healthcare Act-2017)

• Lack of issuance of Identity Card (like UIDAI / Aadhar Card /)

• Lack of issuance of Disability Certificates f. Lack of issuance of Disability Pension (Violation of Section 24 (d) (g) of the RPwD Act-2016)

• Women institutionalized in Mental Health Establishments (for Treatment or Rehabilitation purpose) are not allowed to keep their Children with them as there is no separate MOTHER CHILD WARD in many of the Government run Mental Health Establishment. (Violation of Section 21 (2) of the Mental Healthcare Act-2017 & Section 24 (3) (d) of RPwD Act-2016)

Thus, the petitioner sought the Court's directions to ensure that such barriers are removed and accordingly contended,

"In order to safeguard the interest of the Persons institutionalized in Government Run Mental Health Establishments, it is essential that Respondents shall not only protect, safeguard and promote the rights of such persons but also actively works to remove the above barriers"

Case Title: Gaurav Kumar Bansal v. Mr.Dinesh Kumar and others (Contempt Petition (c) No.1653/2018 in WP(c) No.412/2016)

Click here to read/download the order