The Kerala High Court has issued a directive to the State Police Chief, urging the proper training of police officers in the provisions of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017. The court emphasized the importance of sensitively handling cases involving individuals with mental illnesses.
Justice K Babu, presiding over a single bench, considered the suggestion made by the Amicus Curiae and directed the competent authorities to ensure that police officers across all police stations in the state are well-versed in the relevant provisions of the Mental Healthcare Act.
The court's directive aims to ensure proper, prompt, and effective compliance with the Act, ultimately alleviating the grievances faced by mentally ill individuals. It came in response to a challenge by an accused who had filed an application under Section 328 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), asserting his incapacity to defend himself due to mental illness. However, the Special Court rejected his claim, deeming him mentally sound and denying relief. Subsequently, the petitioner approached the High Court to challenge this order.
The petitioner was accused of offenses under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 9(m) and 9(n) read with Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. In the application filed under Section 328 CrPC, the petitioner stated that he suffered from bipolar disorder, depression, and suicidal tendencies, providing medical records to support his claims.
However, the Special Judge concluded that the petitioner had failed to establish his unsoundness of mind, and thus, an inquiry under Section 328 CrPC was not warranted.
The petitioner's counsel argued that the court did not adequately consider the medical records presented as evidence of the petitioner's mental illness.
The Amicus Curiae appointed in the case highlighted that Section 105 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 mandates the court to refer the matter for scrutiny by the relevant board. The court should then determine whether the trial can proceed based on the board's opinion.
Agreeing with the Amicus Curiae's submissions, the court held that the Special Judge had failed to follow the mandates of Section 105 of the Mental Healthcare Act, as well as the provisions of Sections 328 and 329 of the CrPC.
The court emphasized that under Sections 328 and 329 of the CrPC, the Sessions judge bears the responsibility to conduct an inquiry into the accused's mental state and their consequent incapacity to make a defense. Furthermore, as per Section 105 of the Mental Healthcare Act, if proof of mental illness is presented and challenged by the opposing party, the court must refer the matter to the relevant board for further scrutiny. The board, after examining the person alleged to have a mental illness, is required to submit its opinion to the court. The court's decision on whether the trial can proceed or not should be based on the opinion of the board.
Consequently, the High Court directed the trial judge to reconsider the matter and proceed in accordance with the prescribed legal procedure, ensuring compliance with the provisions mentioned.
Picture Source :
