Uttarakhand High Court
Bridjet Spencer vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 8 June, 2022
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Habeas Corpus Petition No.22 of 2021
Bridjet Spencer ...Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others ....Respondent
Present:-
Mr. D.S. Mehta, Amicus Curiae.
Mr. C.S. Rawat, Addl. C.S.C. for the State.
Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate for the respondent no.6.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
There are much larger issues involved in this
petition now. It relates to the implementation of the Mental
Health Care Act, 2017 ("the Act"). The Court has been seeking
information from the Government of Uttarakhand on certain
facts, particularly with regard to the directions issued by this
Court in the case of Dr. Vijay Verma Vs. Union of India and
others (2018) SCC Online Utt 519. By a communication dated
11.02.2022, Secretary Health, Government of Uttarakhand has
given a report. This report does not reveal much. It does not
help the Court to understand as to what Health Department in
the State is doing with regard to the implementation of the Act.
2. In Para 52 of the judgment, in the case of Dr. Vijay
Verma (supra), the Court has issued various directions. The
Court, today, perused the response of the Secretary Health. A
direction in Para No. E is with regard to framing of a
comprehensive policy for rehabilitation of mentally disturbed
children and patients. The Secretary Health replies that it does
not belong to his department. The Court fails to understand as
to what prevented the officer to collect the information, if he
belongs to some other department and assist this Court in
adjudicating this matter.
3. In Para 52 G, the Court had directed the State
Government to conduct Epidemiological Survey data to
determine the mentally retarded disturbed children. The report
of Health Department, Government of Uttarakhand, reveals that
a communication was sent to the concerned institute, which is
dated 05.02.2022. The judgment, in the case of Dr. Vijay Verma,
was delivered on 01.06.2018. The State Department slept over
the directions for almost long four years.
4. In Para 52 H of the judgment, in case of Dr. Vijay
Verma (supra), the Court had required for establishment of
Human Rights, Ethics, Law and Mental Health with certain
objectives, as given in Para 40 of the judgment. For this purpose
also, the Department of Health has made a communication on
05.02.2022. Government, on its own, has done nothing. They
have not worked on it. They tried to outsource it. It is told that it
has not yet been established.
5. In Para 52 I of the judgment, in the case of Dr.
Vijay Verma (supra), the Court had directed the State
Government to constitute Mental Health Review Boards ("the
Boards"). In fact, its composition is given in Section 73 of the
Act. It includes an officer of the District Judiciary. Such Boards
have not yet been constituted. The report of Health Department
reveals that some directions for constitution of the Boards were
issued in the year 2019 and in the year 2021. State Government
is quite non-serious to the issue, which is in fact much
important in the sphere of public health. The roles and duties of
Boards are quite wide. Section 77 of the Act speaks of it.
Proceedings of the Boards shall be judicial proceedings, as per
Section 78 of the Act. There should be meetings of the Boards,
as per Section 79 of the Act. Section 80 of the Act provides that
the application, filed before the Boards, shall be decided within a
period of 90 days. Section 82 of the Act gives wide powers to the
Boards in the implementation of the provisions of the Act. The
orders passed by the Boards are appealable to the High Court. It
is most unfortunate that the Government of Uttarakhand has
not constituted such Boards. Who is to be held responsible for
it? Why should accountability be not fixed for it? Why the
Government be not asked to take actions against such officer,
who were required to implement the provisions of the Act? This
Court will consider this aspect at a later stage, if required.
6. During the course of argument, learned Amicus
Curiae would suggest that the State Government should have
data of persons suffering with mental illness. Only then, they
could provide effective, adequate mental health care. He
suggests that such data may be collected through Social
Welfare Department, which provides for pensions to mentally
challenged persons. It is submitted that based on such pension
details, the persons could be examined, and thereafter, if
required, adequate mental health care may be provided to such
persons at an affordable cost.
7. Learned C.S.C. would submit that this data may be
collected not only through Social Welfare Department, but
through other health workers like Asha workers or ANMs, who
are working in rural as well as city areas. He also suggests that
the Chief Medical Officer/CMS Office may also provide the data
on the subject.
8. One more aspect needs little reference before the
Court proceeds further. In Para 52 K of the judgment, in the
case of Dr. Vijay Verma (supra), the Court had required State
Government to provide Mental Health Care and Treatment at an
affordable cost of good quality, available in sufficient quantity,
accessible geographically and without any discrimination. The
reply says that somewhere near Dehradun, there is a centre in a
hilly State of Uttarakhand with different geographical terrains.
Can we say that one centre, near Dehradun, is geographically
accessible to the persons suffering with mental illness?
9. Learned C.S.C. would also submit that a
communication has already been made to this Court through
Secretary Law, Government of Uttarakhand for nominating an
officer for constitution of the Boards. This Court has no doubt
that this Court would promptly act to nominate the officers, in
view of the provisions of the Act.
10. The Court expects that the data with regard to
persons suffering from mental illness may be collected in a
manner it is suggested today and it should be tabulated and it
should also be indicated as to how such persons are getting
mental health care at affordable cost.
11. Learned C.S.C. would submit that he has received
some further instructions with regard to the implementation of
the Act. He seeks for the time to compile all the information,
with regard to implementation of the directions, as given in the
case of Dr. Vijay Verma (supra) as also on the directions as
issued by this Court in the instant petition.
12. Learned C.S.C. may file the report on or before
15.07.2022. He will also share a copy of it with the learned
Amicus Curiae.
13. Learned Amicus Curiae may thereafter submit his
report on those points, if any, on or before 22.07.2022.
14. List this matter for hearing on 22.07.2022 as the first
case.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
08.06.2022
Ravi Bisht
