New Delhi: The Kerala High Court ruled Monday that the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 (MHA) can be applied with “retrospective effect”, effectively quashing a criminal case against an MLA’s wife who had attempted suicide in 2016.
The court described the act as “beneficial legislation” and said its benefits should be extended retrospectively to protect people with mental health issues from criminal charges.
“There can be no doubt that MHA is a beneficial legislation and so the benefits contained therein require to be extended to the entire class of persons for whose benefit it was enacted. As it is a beneficial piece of legislation, a retrospective effect can be given to the same,” a single-judge bench of Justice C.S. Sudha said.
While the order was passed by a single-judge bench of Justice C.S. Sudha and is binding on all lower courts within the jurisdiction of the Kerala High Court, it can still be challenged before a two-judge or division bench of the high court. Additionally, it can also be challenged before the Supreme Court. This is because of Article 141, which says that ultimately it is the law declared by the Supreme Court that will be binding on all courts in Indian territory.
The bottom line is that while high court judgments have a persuasive value, they are not binding in nature. This also means that other high courts are not obliged to follow them. However, when it comes to benches of equal strength within the Kerala HC or district courts, authorities and tribunals in the state, the judgment is still binding.
What was the case?
The question of whether the provisions of the MHA can be applied retrospectively arose from a plea seeking to quash a criminal case against a woman booked under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860.
Under Section 309, attempting suicide was classified as a criminal offence, punishable with imprisonment for up to one year, a fine or both.
However, Section 115 of the Mental Healthcare Act, introduced in 2017, said that anyone who attempts suicide would be presumed to have severe stress and would not be tried and punished under the IPC unless proven otherwise.
The appellant in the current case was the wife of an MLA who was contesting elections eight years ago.
The court noted that she suffered severe stress and overdosed on sleeping pills after one of her husband’s opponents created and circulated an audio clip containing her edited conversations, which damaged her husband’s election prospects and were also “highly defamatory”.
How did it unfold in court?
The woman’s lawyer cited Section 115 of the MHA—which deals with the presumption of severe stress in cases of attempt to commit suicide—to argue that going forward with a criminal case against her would amount to a clear abuse of the legal process.
According to Section 115, “notwithstanding anything contained in Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, any person who attempts to commit suicide shall be presumed, unless proved otherwise, to have severe stress and shall not be tried and punished under the said code”.
The provision goes on to add that the government has a duty to provide care, treatment and rehabilitation to a person with severe stress attempting suicide so that the risk of its recurrence is reduced.
On the other hand, the state government argued that the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 wasn’t applicable in this case as it came into effect on 7 July, 2018, and the incident occurred before the act’s passage, in May 2016.
It also argued that as long as Section 309 IPC remains in the statute book, anyone who attempted suicide would be liable to be prosecuted under the provision.
Why was the act passed?
The act was passed because the Mental Health Act, 1987 was considered insufficient for protecting the rights of people with mental illnesses and for promoting their access to mental healthcare in the country, the court said in its latest ruling.
The new legislation repealing the 1987 act was intended to provide mental healthcare and services for those with mental illness. It also aimed to protect, promote, and fulfil the rights of such people during the delivery of mental healthcare and services.
The court said the 2017 act recognised that people with mental illness constituted a vulnerable section of society and were subjected to discrimination.
“Persons with mental illness are to be treated like other persons with health problems and the environment around them is to be made conducive to facilitate recovery or rehabilitation and full participation in society,” the court said while reasoning why the 2017 act came into force.
Clinical psychologist Charu Prabhakar, who is accredited by the Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI), told ThePrint that the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 came after “years of discrimination and stigma”.
“This act emphasises the rights of the person with the aim of reducing discrimination. As per the MHA, no treatment can be forced on a person having mental illness, except when the person can harm themselves or others and when it is authorised by a treating psychiatrist,” she said.
Also read: How SC’s judgment on Section 6A of Citizenship Act 1955 could impact pending petitions against CAA
What did the court decide?
The court said that although laws aren’t usually applied with retrospective effect, an exception can be made for laws that benefit people.
It added that the MHA is “clearly a beneficial piece of legislation” enacted for people suffering from mental illness and for their rehabilitation and treatment.
The court recalled the general principles of retrospectivity laid down by the top court in Commissioner of Income Tax-I, New Delhi vs Vatika Township Pvt Ltd (2015).
“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,” the apex court ruled in 2015.
Applying these principles to the present case, the Kerala HC said that the Mental Healthcare Act can be applied retrospectively since it is beneficial legislation.
“Unless and until the prosecution is able to prove otherwise, a person who attempts to commit suicide is presumed to have been under severe stress and so is not liable to be tried or punished under IPC,” the court said while quashing the criminal case against the petitioner.
Finally, the court said that it was quite disturbing to note that despite the state’s obligation under Section 115(2) of the 2017 act to provide care, treatment and rehabilitation to a person who attempted suicide under severe stress, it found it fit to prosecute the petitioner “for reasons best known to it”.
The way forward
Prabhakar, who is also the assistant lead at Lissun, a tech-enabled mental health startup, said all mental health professionals needed to receive ethical and rights-based training to ensure better execution of the act.
She said that people with mental illness had a right to fair and quality treatment irrespective of gender, social status, economic background, criminal history, religious affiliation or demographic location.
“The act decriminalises suicide and takes an empathetic approach by advocating that people who try to commit suicide need help, not punishments, as they are already in pain,” Prabhakar said.
“To sum up, the act is a step forward in defending the rights and dignity of people with mental illness by taking a humane and caring stance,” she added.
If you are feeling suicidal or depressed, please call a helpline number in your state.
(Edited by Sugita Katyal)
Also read: Plea in SC pushes for voters’ right to use NOTA for unopposed candidate. What the law & petition say