Charanjit Singh And National ... vs State And Ors.
2005 Latest Caselaw 417 Del

JUDGMENT

A.K. Sikri, J.

1. These petitions bring into foray a facet of undertrial prisoner, hitherto hidden under the carpet. The issue highlighted relates to the continued detention of an undertrial prisoner who is mentally unstable and his physical and mental condition does not even allow him to defend himself in the trial which is pending against him. In the process almost 20 years have elapsed.

2. On a charge of murder of one Ashok Malhotra some time in the year 1985, Mr. Charanjit Singh was arrested and put in Jail on 28.10.1985 in FIR No. 854/85 under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Adarsh Nagar, Delhi. He was aged 55 years at that time. After the completion of the investigation, challan was filed against him. However, while he was in judicial custody, he was found to be suffering from schizophrenia and thus, trial could not proceed further. He has remained in judicial custody all through and the trial did not move an inch as Trial Court found that it could not proceed against him who was not only physically weak but a person of unsound mind and, therefore, incapable of defending himself. As long period of 15 years passed by, the Trial Court decided to release him on bail and orders were passed to this effect on 14.7.2000. However, he did not appear before the Trial Court on the date fixed. On this ground the Trial Court cancelled his bail and sent him back to Jail on 29.11.2000. He is in judicial custody ever since. Thus, but for the aforesaid short break of about four and half months he has languished in Jail. Sad part is that none of the relatives of Charanjit Singh is willing to keep him or to give his surety. It may also be necessary to mention at this stage that during this period his ailments have compounded. Not only the illness from which he was suffering, namely, schizophrenia and mental disease, have become worsened over a period of time, shocking information given today in the court to us was that he is now suffering from cancer as well. He is virtually a vegetable who is close to death.

3. His plight caught attention of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) sometime in the year 2002. At that time the matter was looked into from a different angle. It was felt that he cannot get out of jail because neither can he furnish a personal bond nor does he have someone to stand surety for him. NHRC, therefore, asked the Tihar Jail authorities to take steps to ensure that court proceedings are expedited. It also advised the Jail Authorities to engage a lawyer for Charanjit Singh. Taking up of the matter by NHRC came to the notice of the media and in `Hindustan Times' dated June 11,2002 news item describing pitiable condition of Charanjit Singh was published. Reading this news item Criminal Writ Petition No. 729/2002 was filed by Ms. Maniha Bhandarie, Advocate on behalf of Charanjit Singh seeking intervention of the Court and making the following prayers:

(a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Tihar Jail authorities to immediately send the petitioner to an appropriate mental asylum and ensure his proper treatment;

(b) Call for the records of the case from the Court of Sh. T.D. Keshav, Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari and on perusal of the same:

(i) direct the release of the petitioner or recommend the case of the petitioner to the State for remission;

or in the alternative

(ii) direct the Ld. Trial Court to expedite the trial of the case and fix up a date for completion of the trial.

4. NHRC has also intervened in the matter.

5. This Court took immediate cognizance of the matter by issuing notice. Various directions were issued from time to time. It may not be necessary to refer to those orders in detail. Suffice is to state that orders were passed from time to time to ensure that Charanjit Singh gets proper medical attention and treatment. He was admitted in the Institute of Human behavior and Applied Sciences (IHBAS) and he has been getting regular treatment from this Institute as and when needed. Whenever required, he was also shifted to LNJP Hospital or AIIMS. Problem arose about finding another place for him as the treatment revealed that very sight of jail and the jail environment was primary reason for his deteriorating conditions and particularly mental condition.

6. NHRC was requested to make an attempt to find a suitable place for him. Help Age India came to the rescue of Charanjit Singh and agreed to keep him. VIMHANS also agreed to extend necessary medical treatment to him initially for a period of three months by keeping him as indoor patient which was recorded on 24.7.2003. It was agreed that after necessary medical treatment is given to him by VIMHANS free of cost he would be shifted under the aegis of Help Age India to Half Way Home or Old Age Home. However, in view of deteriorating health of Charanjit Singh, Help Age also filed application in these proceedings for shifting of Charanjit Singh to some other place, as it was becoming difficult for Help Age India to manage the affairs, since Charanjit Singh needed constant medical supervision by trained medical staff.

7. Although depending on exigency of situation, orders were passed, giving directions to one or the other Hospital/Institute, Help Age India and Police Authorities to ensure proper medical treatment to Charanjit Singh, ad-hoc arrangement needed to be stabilized by finding lasting solution. Obviously it is not proper to have a situation where Charanjit Singh is made to languish in judicial custody (even when he is in hospital or with Help Age India he remains in judicial custody) till his death. The peculiar situation which has thus arisen is that the accused is in judicial custody for almost 20 years. It has also become clear by now that he cannot be tried as there is no chance of reversal of his deteriorating mental and physical condition. His medical history and expert opinion indicate that there is no scope for improvement. A person with unsound mind cannot stand trial. That is the position in law which emerges from the provisions of Section 328 to 339 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Relvant provisions are reproduced below:

Section 329(1) :-Procedure in case of person of unsound mind tried before court: If at the trial of any person before a Magistrate or Court of Session, it appears to the Magistrate or court that such person is of unsound mind and consequently incapable of making his defense, the Magistrate or court shall, in the first instance, try the fact of unsoundness and incapacity, and if the Magistrate or Court after considering such medical and other evidence as may be produced before him or it is satisfied of the fact, he or it shall record a finding to that effect and shall postpone further proceedings in the case.

Section 330(1) :- Release of lunatic pending investigation or trial:-Whenever a person is found under Section 328 of Section 329, to be of unsound mind and incapable or making his defense, the Magistrate or Court, as the case may be , whether the case is one in which bail may be taken or not may release him on sufficient securing being given that he shall be properly taken care of and shall be prevented from doing injury to himself or to any other person, and for his appearance when required before the magistrate or Court or such Officer as the Magistrate of Court appoints in this behalf.

(2) If the case is one in which, in the opinion of the Magistrate or Court, bail should not be taken, or if sufficient security is not given, the Magistrate or court, as the case may be, shall order the accused to be detained in safe custody in such please and manner as he or it may think fit, and shall report the action taken to the State Govt.

Provided that no order for the detention of the accused in a lunatic asylum shall be made otherwise then in accordance with such rules ad the State Government may have made under the Indian Lunacy Act 1912 (4 of 1912).

Section 332: -If the Magistrate or Court considers the accused to be still incapable of making his defense, the Magistrate or Court shall act according to the provisions of Section 328 or Section 329, as the case may be and if the accused is found to be of unsound mind and consequently incapable of making his defense, shall deal with such accused in accordance with the provisions of Section 330.

Section 337 -Procedure where lunatic prisoner is reported capable of making his defense:-If such person is detained under the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 330, and in the case of a person detailed in a jail, the Inspector General of Prisons, or in the case of a person detained in a lunatic asylum. The visitors of such asylum or any two of them shall certify that, in his or their opinion, such person is capable or making his defense, he shall be taken before the Magistrate or court, as the case may be, at such time as the Magistrate or Court appoints, and the Magistrate or Court shall deal with such person under the provisions of Section 332, and the certificate of such Inspector General or visitors as aforesaid shall be receivable as evidence.

8. There is no provision in the code which permits abatement of trial if a person becomes insane during the pendency of the trial. Therefore, as per these provisions, trial is to be kept in abeyance . However, if this state of affairs continues, the accused shall have to remain in judicial custody till his death; without trial and without charges having been established against him.

9. This prompted the NHRC to file Criminal Writ Petition No. 1278/2004 seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings against Charanjit Singh impleading him as proforma respondent No. 3.

10. The admitted position which thus emerges is that Charanjit Singh has already suffered imprisonment for about 20 years. Even if he had been convicted of the offence under Section 302 IPC for which he is charged, his sentence would have come up for first remission 5 to 6 years ago. It has also come on record that long years he has spent in jail without adequate treatment has given rise to and/ or worsened mental and physical condition. He is incapable of understanding nature of criminal proceedings a against him and , therefore, incapable of standing trial and it can be safely concluded from the various medical reports that this condition may last till his last breath. He is not a person who can harm anybody. His further detention in judicial custody may not be proper. Releasing him on bail would also be a mere paper formality as no family member or any other person has come forward to stand surety for him or to seek his custody. Therefore, in such a situation, more so keeping in view the period already spent in the judicial custody and no chances for facing criminal trial in view of his mental condition, it is a fit case where charge sheet be quashed. We are of the opinion that keeping the proceedings in suspended animation for rest of his life reating him as undertrial prisoner, in the given case, would be negation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which guarantees not only right to life but right to live with dignity. Is it proper that such a person even after spending almost 20 years in judicial custody and incapable of standing trial should be treated as undertrial with charge against him under Section 302 IPC for rest of his life? Our answer would be in the negative as such state of affairs denies him his right to defend himself and claim honourable acquittal which is also a possibility in any criminal trial.

11. The Supreme Court made following pertinent observations in the case of National Human Rights Commission Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh :

20. We are a country governed by the Rule of Law. Our Constitution confers certain rights on every human being and certain other rights on citizens. Every person is entitled to equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. So also, no person can be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Thus the State is bound to protect the life and liberty of every human being, be he a citizen or otherwise.

12. We are conscious of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of P. Ramachandra Rao Vs. State of Karnataka . The court was of the opinion that no period of limitation could be provided for trial of a case and it was not possible to acquit a person after a particular period if trial is not concluded. The Supreme Court observed:

Prescribing period of limitation at the end of which the trial court would be obliged to terminate the proceeding and necessarily acquit or discharge the accused and further making such directions applicable to all the case in the present and future amounts to legislation, which cannot be done by judicial directions and within the area of judicial law making power available to Constitutional Courts, howsoever, liberally Articles 32/21/141/142 of the Constitution may be interpreted.

13. However, in the present case, we are not terminating the proceedings simply because, trial is pending for last 20 years. The exceptional situation which has arisen in this case is that neither trial has begun for all these years nor there is any possibility, even distinct possibility, in future.

14. We are also mindful of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Simranjit Singh Mann Vs. Union of India and Anr. wherein the Supreme Court held that writ petition by a third party challenging conviction and sentences awarded to certain convicts on ground of violation of their fundamental rights was not maintainable. That was a case where the petitioner was found to be a total stranger to the prosecution having not been authorized by the convicts and not having a legend violation of his own fundamental rights, and the court held in these proceedings that he has no locus standi to maintain the petition. However, it would be worth mentioning that court recognized the role of such third party to represent the convicts only if they were under some disability recognized by law. In the present case, Charanjit Singh is suffering from mental disability. He has no family members who have come forward to rescue him. He is deserted by his nears and dears. Filing of petition by NHRC for quashing of the petition is, therefore, an appropriate step. NHRC was constituted to safeguard the human rights of the citizens of this country. There could not have been a better person taking up the cause of desolate and destitute per on like Charanjit Singh. The credentials of NHRC have already been commented upon and approved by the Supreme Court in the case of Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh and Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. .

15. In view of the foregoing discussion, we hereby quash the FIR No. 854/85 and proceedings arising out of the said FIR pending in the court of Shri T.D. Keshav, Additional District Judge, Delhi.

16. We may mention at this stage that quashing of this FIR and criminal proceedings against Charanjit Singh was not a difficult decision to take in view of obvious factual background narrated above. Even learned counsel for the State did not have any serious objection. However, more difficult question which was bothering us was this; what would happen to Charanjit Singh once he is freed and he is no more an undertrial prisoner? While in judicial custody it is the duty and obligation of the State to takcare of undertrial prisoners. This duty includes giving the undertrial prisoner proper medical treatment if he/she is suffering from any ailment. It is because of this reason the State had been discharging this duty in the present case by providing medical treatment and /or bearing the necessary expenditure. Once Charanjit Singh ceases to be an undertrial prisoner and there is no criminal case pending against him, State could wash it hands off. We did not want this consequence of quashing of FIR as his `freedom' to the undertrial prisoner would have denied him the medical treatment and put him in a worst position than what he has today. We feel relieved to find positive response given by the Government of NCT of Delhi to the problem and the approach suggested by it as contained in affidavit dated 26th February,2005 of Mr. Peter Bara, Deputy Secretary in the Home Department, Government of NCT of Delhi wherein it is, inter alia, stated that the Government is agreeable to take care of Charanjit Singh' medical needs even if criminal proceedings are quashed and would not be pending. With this, we feel relieved. We are confident that in so far as treatment of Mr. Charanjit Singh is concerned, due care and attention would be given in future. It was also our concern, and that of NHRC, that such cases should not recur.

17. With this anxiety, we requested learned counsel appearing for NHRC to suggest the solution. We note it with satisfaction that NHRC has undertaken necessary exercise by preparing the guidelines to deal with cases of those who are mentally ill and in jail. In these guidelines which were placed before us, issue is highlighted by referring to two judgments of the Supreme Court and comments of Mulla Committee. It is pointed out by that:

1. In Rama Murthy v. State of Karnataka , the Hon'ble Supreme Court commented inter alia on the pathetic living conditions in jail, on overcrowding, delays in trail, torture and ill-treatment, and neglect of health and hygiene. The Hon'ble Court took judicial notice of All India Committee on Jail Reforms [1980-83] (headed by Justice A.N. Mulla) observing:

We direct the authorities concerned to take appropriate decision on the suggestions within a period of six months from today. It may be pointed out that there is really a grievance about allowing the recommendations to remain in cold storage.

2. The Mulla Committee has commented on the large number of mentally ill persons in jails, the majority of whom are convicts and undertrials. In addition, mentally ill people not facing any criminal charges have been incarcerated in some places. The Committee has also detailed the abysmal living conditions in prison and utterly inadequate medical facilities.

3. The National Human Rights Commission notes with concern that an increasing number of initially sane undertrials and convicts are becoming mentally ill after being sent to jail.

4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Veena Sethi v. State of Bihar , that We would like to take this opportunity to impressing upon the State Government that in a large State like the State of Bihar, there must be an adequate number of institutions for looking after the mentally sick and the practice of sending lunatics orisons of unsound mind to the jail for safe custody is not at all a healthy or desirable practice because jail is hardly a place for treating those who are mentally sick.

18. The NHRC, in this conspectus, has made the following recommendations:

1) Psychological or psychiatric counseling should be provided to prisoners as required in order to prevent mental illness and/or to ensure early detection. Collaborations of this purpose should be made with local psychiatric and medical institutions as will as with NGOs.

2) Central and District jails should have facilities for preliminary treatment of mental disorder. Sub-jails should take inmates with mental illness to visiting psychiatric facilities. All jails should be formally affiliated to a mental hospital.

3) Every central and district prison should have the services of a qualified psychiatrist who should be assisted by a psychologist and a psychiatric social worker.

4) Not a single mentally ill person who is not accused with committing a crime should be kept in or sent to prison. Such people should be taken for observation to the nearest psychiatric centre, or if that is not available to the Primary Health Centre.

5) If an undertrial or a convict undergoing sentence becomes mentally ill while in prison, the State has an affirmative responsibility to the undertrial or convict. The State must provide adequate medical support. As such an appropriate facilities should be provided in State-assisted hospitals for undertrials that become mentally ill in prison. The person should be placed under the observation of a psychiatrist who will diagnose treat and manage the person. In case such places are not available, the State must pay for the same medical care in a private hospital. In either case care must be provided until recovery of the undertrial/convict.

6) When a convict has been admitted to a hospital for psychiatric care, upon completion of the period of his prison sentence, his status in all records of the prison and hospital should be recorded as that of a free person and he should continue to receive treatment as a free person.

7) Mentally ill undertrials should be sent to the nearest prison having the services of a psychiatric and attached to a hospital, they should be hospitalized as necessary. Each such undertrial should be attended to by a psychiatrist who will send a periodic report to the Judge/Magistrate through the Superintendent of the prison regarding the condition of the individual and his fitness to stand trial. When the undertrial recovers from mental illness, the psychiatrist shall certify him as 'fit to stand trial'.

8) All those in jail with mental illness and under observation of a psychiatrist should be kept in one barrack.

9) If a mentally ill person, after standing trial following recovery from the mental illness is declared guilty of the crime, he should undergo term in the prison. Such prisoners, after recovery should not be kept in the prison hospital but should remain in the association barracks with the normal inmates. The prison psychiatrist will, however, continue to periodically examine him for reviewing his treatment and suggesting him other activities.

10) The State has a responsibility for the mental and physical health of those it imprisons. While some of the recommendations below may appear to be of a general nature, they would help prevent people becoming mentally ill after entering jail. Each jail and detention centre, therefore, should ensure that it provides the following:

(i) An open environment, lawns, kitchen gardens and flower gardens, Daily programmes for prisoners should include physical and mental activities that reduce stress and depression including organized sport and meditation.

(ii) A humane staff that is not undly harsh;

(a) Officers of the institution shall not, in their relations with the prisoners use force except in self-defense or in cases of attempted escape, or active or passive physical resistance to an order based on law or regulations. Officers who have recoure to force must use no more than is strictly necessary and must report the incident immediately to the director of the institution.

(b) Prison officers shall be given special physical training to enable them to restrain aggressive prisoners.

(c) Except in special circumstances, staff performing duties which being them into direct contact with prisoners should not be armed. Furthermore, staff should in no circumstances be provided with arms unless they have been trained in their use.

(iii) Effective grievance redressal mechanisms.

(a) Every prisoner on admission shall be provided with written information about the regulation governing the treatment of prisoners of his category, the disciplinary requirements of the institution, the authorized methods of seeking information and making complaints, and all such other matters as are necessary to enable him to understand both his rights and his obligations and to adapt himself to the life of the institution.

(b) If a prisoner is illiterate, the aforesaid information shall be conveyed to him orally.

(c) Every prisoner shall have the opportunity each weekday of making requests or complaints to the director of the institution or the officer authorized to represent him.

(d) Every prisoner shall be allowed to make a request or complaint, without censorship as to substance but in proper form, to the central prison administration, the judicial authority or other proper authorities through approved channels.

(e) Unless it is evidently frivolous or groundless, every request or complaint shall be promptly dealt with and replied to without undue delay.

(iv) Encouragement to receive visitors and maintain correspondence, interview facilities; access to the more important items of the news by any means authorized by the administration; access for foreign nationals to their diplomatic representatives.

(v) Overseeing bodies including members from civil society to ensure the absence of corruption and abuse of power in jails.

11) Regarding those undertrials whose trial has been suspended for even a single day due to mental illness, report should be sent to the relevant District and Sessions Judge as well as the Magistrate on a quarterly basis i.e. every three months. A profoma for details to be provided is attached herewith as Annexure A.

12) As soon as it comes to the notice of the trial court that an undertrial is mentally unsound and cannot understand the nature of proceedings against him, the trial court must follow the procedure under Chapter 25 CrPC and ensure strict compliance of Mantal Health Act 1987, relating to progress report of undertrial. In this regard the trial court must ask for periodic report of the progress of the undertrial as detailed by the proforma.

13) The Delhi Judicial Academy could include short-term capsule course to sensitize judicial officers likely to deal with mental health cases and to orient such officers to the Mental Health Act, 1987. These short-term courses could be institutionalized and provide to each batch of judicial officer.

14) When the trial of a mentally ill person is suspended for a period longer than 50% of the possible sentence (subject to a maximum of three years) the matter should be reported to the Registrar of the High Court of Delhi to be put up to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for information and appropriate action. A copy of this report should be sent to the NHRC. Such reports should be made on a six-monthly basis, by filling the proforma at Annexure A.

15) The State Government must strengthen legal aid services; they should extend beyond representation before magistrate when the case is taken up. Given the record of mentally ill persons not being produced for years before the court, preventive legal and is required to check the abuse of the law and dumping the mentally ill in prisons. Rejection by the family means that no one would be approached to provide help to the jailed person. Legal aid, in the person of duty counsel at police stations, can help enforce procedures and screen out the vagrant mentally ill from the criminal justice process even at the point of entry. Duty counsel in courts can ensure that no mentally ill persons is unrepresented.

16) The state must assume responsibility also for those persons who have been discharged from prison and hospital and no longer require full time care for mental illness, but are unable to take care of themselves.

According to Help age India, the Department of Social Welfare, Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi plans to establish some additional old age homes. Ideally, some of these would be earmarked for older persons, who have been subjected to social injustice egg. those like Mr. Charanjeet Singh who have suffered unnecessary incarceration. The Government's running of such establishments has left much to desired due to bureaucratic management, an attachment to rules and procedures rather than sensitive provision of support; the state of existing old age homes run by the government in Delhi makes this clear.

17) Those in the above category of persons should not be sent to Homes that treat them as sub-human, but rather provided with humane, community-based alternatives where full time care is required. Semi-independent, protected community houses would need be established where such people could be rehabilitated and gainfully employed in some income generating activities with the objective of helping them lead as normal a life within society.

A number of government schemes already exist to provide community-based rehabilitation and should be implemented. However, appropriate medical care must be provided with periodic visits by qualified psychiatrists. Such homes should be run by grass root NGOs and overseen and financed by the Government.

18) at the same time there should be a shift in focus from institutionalizing vulnerable people (such as the old and mentally ill) if it is possible for the person to be taken care of at home, institutional support of families should be provided in order to make the rehabilitation more successful.

Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned counsel for NHRC submitted that a large number of non-government organizations as well as medical institutions receive grants from the Government of India as well as from the public at large. These organizations and medical institutions are in turn obliged to provide services to the needy and deserving individuals. We may put on record our appreciation for the positive approach adopted by the Government even in this respect.

19. The affidavit of Mr. Peter Bara also mentions the future plans of the Government to deal with such situations and it would be apposite to reproduce paras 5 and 6 of this affidavit verbatim:

5. In order to consider how the undertrial prisoner, Shri Charanjit Singh could be facilitated both in the task of his psychiatric treatment as also in terms of his maintenance and accommodation, exhaustive consultations were held by the Principal Secretary (Home) of the Government of NCT of Delhi on the 18th February, 2005 with Director General (Prisons), Principal Secretary (Health) Government of NCT of Delhi, the Medical Superintendent of Institute of Human behavior and Allied Sciences (IHBAS), the Director of Social Welfare, Sp. Commissioner of Police (Security), the Resident Medical Officer Tihar and other senior officers. It was noted that the case of undertrial prisoner Shri Charanjit Singh who had been in prison for a long time as an undertrial was originally brought to the notice of the National Human Rights Commission by the Director General (Prisons) himself. It was further noted that the NGO Help age India has now expressed its inability to undertake responsibility for his care any longer.

Shri Charanjit Singh is now 70 years of age, mentally ill, but non violent and apart from multiple problems such as schizophrenia, senile dementia, etc. is found to be suffering from renal failure and carcinoma of the urinary bladder. Shri Charanjit Sing was reported to have committed a murder over a dispute concerning some money lending transaction.

6. Presently, IHBAS housed among others as many as 40 mental patients (not prisoners) who have recovered from their illness but they are not acceptable to their families, thus resulting in overcrowding at the hospital. The Principal Secretary (Healt) informed that this situation could have been adequately dealt with had there been a half way home in Delhi to deal with such cases and proposed that some land out of that allotted to IHBAS could be given to the Department of Social Welfare, with the express purpose of establishing such a half way home. However, this would be in the long term perspective. The Director Social Welfare offered to take over the 40 mental patients who had been cured from mental illness, and stated that they could be shifted to the Social Welfare Department run home at Lampur, provided services of two persons are made available by IHBAS to provide psychiatric assistance in the context of the undertrial prisoner. It was agreed that the desirable place for this undertrial risoner was a half way home with active medical facilities or a medical institution like AIIMS but in view of the current situation as it was agreed to keep him at IHBAS. It may be mentioned that indeed the judicial pronouncements and NHRC guidelines do not encourage such long stay patients to keep at psychiatric hospital like IHBAS. It was agreed that he could be shifted from Tihar to IHBAS for psychiatric treatment, and as far as other ailments are concerned, he could be treated either at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences or Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital even while being housed at IHBAS for psychiatric treatment. Accordingly, it was agreed that the undertrial prisoner Sh. Charanjit Singh could, if this court so directed, be shifted to IHBAS an the Government of NCT of Delhi would then bear the expenses involved on treatment of this undertrial prisoner including provision of attendants, if any. However, the provision for guarding the prisoner at IHBAS would depend on the orders of this court with active support from Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital and AIIMS for active medical care.

20. We commend the aforesaid positive approach adopted by the Government of NCT of Delhi and bestowing its attention to deal with such cases in future. However, in order to ensure that what is proposed in the aforesaid affidavit is translated into reality, the necessary scheme on the lines suggested shall be prepared by the Government as early as possible and in any case within three months from today. In the scheme to be formulated, guidelines suggested by NHRC shall be kept in mind and suitably incorporated. We also direct the Government to take immediate steps for establishing Half Way Home.

21. Some of the suggestions of the NHRC are to be looked into by this Court for proper implementation. A copy of this order be sent to Delhi Judicial Academy for organizing short term capsule courses to sensitize Judicial Officers likely to deal with mental health cases as suggested in Guideline No. 13. A copy of this order be also circulated to concerned Sessions Judges, Additional Sessions Judges and Metropolitan Magistrates so that they pass appropriate orders in such cases keeping in view Guideline No. 14 and 15 of the NHRC in mind.

22. We place on record our appreciation for Ms. Manisha Bhandarie, Advocate who filed this petition on behalf of Mr. Charanjit Singh and Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Advocate who appeared for NHRC as well as Ms. Mukta Gupta, counsel for NCT of Delhi for rendering valuable assistance.

23. In view of this positive approach adopted by the Government of NCT of Delhi and suggested guidelines of NHRC, it is expected that the Government shall draw out a proper strategy to deal with such cases of mentally ill persons who are convicts or facing trial and lodged in jails so that situation like Charanjit Singh does not recur. With this hope and in the aforesaid terms, we dispose of these two petitions.