MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court issued 25 directives aimed at ensuring the State Mental Health Authority (SMHA) becomes fully operational and enhances the care and rehabilitation of recovered patients from mental health hospitals. Among these directives, the court instructed the SMHA to develop a protocol that is reasonably flexible to cater to the individual needs of patients.
The High Court instructed the State to establish a minimum of six additional
The High Court emphasized that the State Mental Health Authority (SMHA) is the key entity responsible for enforcing the Mental Healthcare Act of 2017 in Maharashtra. However, the Court expressed concern that without an active and functional Authority, the seven-year-old Act would remain ineffective. The division bench of Justices Nitin Jamdar and MM Sathaye stated, “Even after two years, essential data is still lacking, and there is no clear roadmap for the rehabilitation of recovered patients.”
The High Court emphasized the importance of the State fulfilling its obligations regarding the rehabilitation and funding for the State Mental Health Authority (SMHA), which it stated must now be diligent in its duties. The Court directed the SMHA to prepare, within six months, a comprehensive plan for the rehabilitation of recovered patients.
The authority is encouraged to seek input from mental health professionals and NGOs in the field. It should clearly outline the responsibilities of all agencies involved in the process. Until the plans are finalized, the division bench directed that a draft submitted by the authority should be implemented, and efforts should be made to release 50-70 patients to either families or halfway homes. The judgment was delivered in response to a public interest litigation filed in February 2022 by Mumbai psychiatrist Dr. Harish Shetty. The case involved a patient ‘X’ who was admitted by her husband to a government mental health establishment in 2009 and filed for divorce in 2012.
Her family had abandoned her, and in 2021, a panel appointed by the family court visited her and found her needlessly languishing. A report by TOI highlighted the family court order, in which the then Judge Swati Chauhan remarked, “This is a case where, solely because the wife was not allowed in the matrimonial home, she had to languish in a regional mental hospital for more than a decade even after her discharge.”
The ordeal concluded on a positive note when her husband took her home in 2022. However, deeply moved by her plight, Dr. Shetty filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) to draw attention to the deficiencies in implementing the legal framework for mental health care and protecting the rights of individuals in the State.
