Gurugram: It has been over eight years since the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, came into force. The Punjab and Haryana High Court has now said, in a written order, that the law is yet to work the way Parliament intended.
Hearing a PIL by Pushpanjali Trust, a bench of Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor observed that the setting up of the State Mental Health Authority under Section 45 of the Act “has remained a matter of empty formality”.
The order was passed on 15 September.
The Act came into force on 29 May, 2018. Section 45 required every state to set up the authority within nine months of the President’s assent. The bench said steps had been taken under the Act, “but its provisions have not been implemented in letter and spirit”.
The sharpest remarks came on the rules. In an affidavit filed on behalf of Punjab’s Chief Secretary, the state said the rules under the Act had been approved by the Centre but were yet to be notified, as they had to be placed before the Legislature first. It relied on Section 121(2) of the Act.
The court read the provision differently. Once the Centre approves, the bench said, the rules have to be notified, and only after that placed before the Legislature. The affidavit, it held, was “in the teeth of the statutory provisions”.
Additional Advocate General Jastej Singh, appearing for Punjab, did not dispute the legal position. He sought a week to take the necessary steps.
The bench noted that the State Mental Healthcare Authorities have already been constituted in Punjab and Haryana. It directed both states to produce their annual reports on record.
Chandigarh is in a different position. The court directed the UT Administration to ensure that its Mental Healthcare Authorities are constituted within four weeks.
The three administrations were also told to make all institutions contemplated under the Act functional. This, the bench said, was so that the authorities could discharge their statutory obligations and ensure effective mental healthcare for citizens.
The court said the Act needed “due sensitivity” from officials of the state and that it expected the authorities to be “more careful” in ensuring compliance.
The Union of India was represented by Senior Advocate Dheeraj Jain and Central Government Counsel Shreyanshi Verma. Additional Advocate General Deepak Balyan appeared for Haryana and Additional Standing Counsel Rakesh Sobti for Chandigarh.
The matter will be heard next on 5 October.
(Edited by Amrtansh Arora)