Allahabad High Court
Renu Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 12 August, 2024
Bench: Vivek Chaudhary, Narendra Kumar Johari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:55778-DB Court No. - 9 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3076 of 2022 Petitioner :- Renu Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vaibhav Sharma,Amol Kumar Srivastava,Shivanshu Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ajay Singh,Romit Seth,Sameer Singh Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J.
Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State/opposite parties and learned counsel for the private opposite parties.
2. Present writ petition was initially filed for the following main reliefs:
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned F.I.R. dated 15.5.2022, Case Crime No.0171 of 2022, under Section 384, 504, 506 IPC & 66 of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, Police Station- Hazratganj, District Lucknow; contained in Annexure No.1 and every proceedings arising out of the same.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the opposite parties not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned F.I.R. dated 15.5.2022; contained in Annexure No.1."
3. Admittedly, in this case, a charge sheet has already been submitted in court after completion of investigation on 19.08.2022. Meanwhile, through an amendment application, following prayer has been made:
"(ia) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus calling for the record of the case specially the order dated 19.5.2022 and quash the order dated 19.5.2022 (Annexure No.SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit)."
4. By order dated 19.05.2022, Director, Social Welfare, U.P. has directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Prayagraj to get the medical examination of the petitioner with regard to her mental health done under Section 100(1) (b) of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017.
5. Learned A.G.A. supports the order dated 19.05.2022, citing Section 100(1)(b) of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017. Section 100 is quoted as follows:
"100. Duties of police officers in respect of persons with mental illness.?(1) Every officer in-charge of a police station shall have a duty?
(a) to take under protection any person found wandering at large within the limits of the police station whom the officer has reason to believe has mental illness and is incapable of taking care of himself; or
(b) to take under protection any person within the limits of the police station whom the officer has reason to believe to be a risk to himself or others by reason of mental illness."
6. However, the petitioner's counsel argues that Section 100 only authorizes the Officer in Charge of a Police Station to protect a person whom the Officer believes to have a mental illness and is a risk to himself or others. The impugned order dated 19.05.2022 was issued by the Director, Social Welfare, U.P., who, under Section 100(1)(b), does not have the authority to order a medical examination for mental health. Therefore, the order is argued to be illegal, beyond jurisdiction, and should be quashed.
7. A perusal of the provisions of Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 shows that the Act is designed to ensure that individuals with mental illness receive appropriate mental health care and services. It also guarantees their right to live with dignity, free from discrimination and harassment and hence its scheme emphasizes on only voluntary admissions and examinations barring only a few exceptions. Sections 85 and 86 of the Act of 2017 provides for Admissions and treatment at a Mental Health Institution. Sections 85 and 86 of the Act of 2017 are quoted as below:
"85. Admission of person with mental illness as independent patient in mental health establishment.?
(1) For the purposes of this Act, "independent patient or an independent admission" refers to the admission of person with mental illness, to a mental health establishment, who has the capacity to make mental healthcare and treatment decisions or requires minimal support in making decisions.
(2) All admissions in the mental health establishment shall, as far as possible, be independent admissions except when such conditions exist as make supported admission unavoidable.
86. Independent admission and treatment.?(1) Any person, who is not a minor and who considers himself to have a mental illness and desires to be admitted to any mental health establishment for treatment may request the medical officer or mental health professional in charge of the establishment to be admitted as an independent patient.
(2) On receipt of such request under sub-section (1), the medical officer or mental health professional in charge of the establishment shall admit the person to the establishment if the medical officer or mental health professional is satisfied that?
(a) the person has a mental illness of a severity requiring admission to a mental health establishment;
(b) the person with mental illness is likely to benefit from admission and treatment to the mental health establishment;
(c) the person has understood the nature and purpose of admission to the mental health establishment, and has made the request for admission of his own free will, without any duress or undue influence and has the capacity to make mental healthcare and treatment decisions without support or requires minimal support from others in making such decisions.
(3) If a person is unable to understand the purpose, nature, likely effects of proposed treatment and of the probable result of not accepting the treatment or requires a very high level of support approaching hundred per cent. support in making decisions, he or she shall be deemed unable to understand the purpose of the admission and therefore shall not be admitted as independent patient under this section.
(4) A person admitted as an independent patient to a mental health establishment shall be bound to abide by order and instructions or bye-laws of the mental health establishment.
(5) An independent patient shall not be given treatment without his informed consent.
(6) The mental health establishment shall admit an independent patient on his own request, and shall not require the consent or presence of a nominated representative or a relative or care-giver for admitting the person to the mental health establishment.
(7) Subject to the provisions contained in section 88 an independent patient may get himself discharged from the mental health establishment without the consent of the medical officer or mental health professional in charge of such establishment."
8. A joint reading of the aforesaid Sections of the Act of 2017 shows that admissions to mental health institutions should be voluntary and independent, except in unavoidable circumstances requiring supported admission. There is no evidence on record to show that such circumstances existed that would require Officer in Charge of a Police Station to take action under Section 100(1)(b) of the Act of 2017. Additionally, there is no conduct of petitioner which could be a ground that would suggest that petitioner poses a risk to herself or others.
9. The Court inquired whether the Director of Social Welfare has the authority to issue such an order. Learned A.G.A. could not indicate any provision under which, such an order can be passed by the Director, Social Welfare, U.P.
10. In view thereof, the impugned order dated 19.5.2022 is set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent.
11. So far as the charge sheet is concerned, it goes without saying that the petitioner can take appropriate steps as permissible under law with regard to the same, which would be decided without being influenced by this order.
.
[Narendra Kumar Johari,J.] [Vivek Chaudhary,J.] Order Date :- 12.8.2024 Sachin