Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.

» Home
Thursday, November 21, 2024

Free Mentally Ill Children And Formulate Policies For Them: Uttarakhand High Court

Posted in: Juvenile Laws
Tue, Jun 12, 18, 12:34, 7 Years ago
star star star star star
5 out of 5 with 1 ratings
comments: 15 - hits: 5692
It must be lauded right at the outset the landmark judgment delivered by the Uttarakhand High Court on June 1, 2018 which shall benefit all those mentally ill children who have to face untold sufferings and discrimination

It must be lauded right at the outset the landmark judgment delivered by the Uttarakhand High Court on June 1, 2018 which shall benefit all those mentally ill children who have to face untold sufferings and discrimination just because they are mentally ill. All this maltreatment of mentally ill children keeps on happening right under the nose of the state administration and yet no concrete and tough measures are taken to check it. But from now onwards not any more.

As it turned out, the Uttarakhand High Court in the landmark case of Dr Vijay Verma v Union of India & others in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 17 of 2018 issued a series of directions meant to extend basic human dignity to the mentally challenged and safeguard their interests. It directed the State to formulate a comprehensive policy for rehabilitation of mentally ill children and patients. This is certainly very commendable and a positive step in the right direction.

It must be stated here that while issuing a slew of directions, the Bench comprising Justice Rajiv Sharma and Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma also asked the State to ensure that they are not treated by Tantrics and quacks. Besides, it also directed the State to gather Epidemiological Survey Data on mentally ill children through National Institute of Mental Help and Neurosciences at Bangalore in Karnataka within six months. The Court was hearing a petition filed by Dr Vijay Verma who had highlighted the terrible plight of mentally ill children and had also pointed at the abject failure of the StateGovernment in formulating a policy for their welfare.

Be it noted, the PIL had cited two Times of India (TOI) newspaper reports of mentally challenged children being kept tied in chains in Udham Singh Nagar and Rudraprayag districts. It may be recalled here that the TOI had in its edition dated October 23, 2017 highlighted the plight of Pankaj Rana who is a 22-year-old youth from Rudraprayag who had been kept chained by his family ever since he was born. The youth is afflicted with a condition termed as quadriparesis which renders limbs immobile as well as aphasia which affects the comprehension of speech. His mother who is a widow did not have the resources to get him treated.

It would be pertinent to mention here that in a similar story published on December 28, 2017, TOI had reported on a mentally disabled girl Chandni Das who had been kept chained for three years by her parents. The 14-year-old girl's father who is a daily wager was unable to provide her treatment. Both these stories carried lot of merit.

Needless to say, the Uttarakhand High Court promptly directed the administration of both the districts to ensure that the affected persons "are freed within six hours and admitted in a suitable health facility within 24 hours." Taking cognizance of both these cases, the Division Bench of Justices Rajiv Sharma and Sharad Kumar Saxena directed the state government to pay Rs 50,000 to the guardians of both the mentally challenged persons cited in the reports and fix their pension at Rs 5,000 per month. The Division Bench also made it a point to mention categorically that, "The families of mentally disturbed children always remain under stress and strain. Poverty further aggravates the situation. It must be very painful for the parents to chain their own children. We, as a society, have to be sensitive towards the mentally disturbed children."

Simply put, while remarking that "the present petition had raised a question of grave public importance," the Judges directed the government to "undertake a survey of those mentally retarded persons, who are not getting treatment and have been kept by their family members in chains" and submit the report "positively within a period of six weeks." The court further appointed the district magistrate and senior superintendent of police of Udham Singh Nagar district as "persons in loco parentis for the care, protection, treatment and rehabilitation" of Chandni Das. Very rightly so!

To be sure, Ajay Veer Pundir who is counsel for the petitioner told media that by late evening, the district magistrates of Rudraprayag and Udham Singh Nagar had taken steps to comply with the court's orders. He pointed out that, "The DMs have informed that teams were dispatched to the homes of the patients and their chains were removed." All thanks to Justice Rajiv Sharma and Justice Sharad Kumar Saxena of Uttarakhand High Court who ensured this happens!

It would be imperative to mention here that while taking note of the provisions of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 and the current steps being taken by the authorities for the welfare of mentally ill children, the Court underscored on the importance of comfortable and safe environment for them. It minced no words in stating most explicitly that, "Every person with mental illness is entitled to clean, safe and hygienic environment, adequate sanitary conditions, reasonable facilities for leisure, recreation, education and religious practices, food, proper clothing to protect such person from exposure of his body to maintain his dignity, and not be subjected to compulsory tonsuring (saving of head hair), to be protected from all forms of physical, verbal, emotional and sexual abuse in any mental health establishments run by the State and granted permission by any private institution provided approval by it."

It also has to be remembered that the Court went on to specifically take note of two cases where minor disabled children were kept chained by their parents due to lack of resources to take care of them. While sympathizing with the children as well as the parents, it opined that the family of mentally ill children remain under immense stress and strain. There can be no denying it!

Going forward, it then noted the importance of endowing "constant love, care, passion and compassion" on such children. It also highlighted the significant role of the society in aiding the growth and development of such children, while ensuring that they are treated humanely. It observed very rightly that, "The mentally disturbed children/patients have a fundamental right to privacy, dignity, self-respect, self-preservation, access to quality mental health care and sustenance. The Society should make sincere endeavor to assimilate/integrate the persons who are mentally disturbed persons, since it is difficult for them to take decisions of their own. All of us must provide due care and protection to mentally disturbed children since it is difficult for them to take decisions of their own.The role of the society is to make an endeavor to protect the rights of mentally disturbed children as guardians and custodians."

Having said this, it must also be mentioned here that thereafter, the Court disposed of the petition with the following landmark directions as stated below: -
Unchain mentally ill children
1.The District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar and Senior Superintendent of Police, Udham Singh Nagar are directed to remove the chains of Ms. Chandni D/o Narayan Das R/o Subhash Colony, Rudrapur within six hours. These officers are also directed to shift Ms. Chandni to the Mental Health Hospital, Selaqui within 24 hours.

2.The District Magistrate, Rudraprayag and Superintendent of Police, Rudraprayag are directed to remove the chains of Mr. Pankaj Rana within six hours. They are further directed to shift Mr. Pankaj Rana to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh within 24 hours.

Rs. 50,000 compensation and Rs. 5,000 monthly payment to such chained children

1.The District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar and the District Magistrate, Rudraprayag are directed to pay and release the ex gratia payment of Rs.50,000/- each to the guardians of Ms. Chandni and Mr Pankaj Rana within 24 hours for the treatment of their wards.

2.The respondent-State is directed to pay a monthly stipend of Rs.5,500/- each to the guardians of Km. Chandni and Mr. Pankaj Rana for their care and protection including treatment.

Comprehensive policy for such children
1.The State Government is also directed to prepare a comprehensive Policy for rehabilitating the mentally disturbed children and parents.
2.All the SSPs/SPs, throughout the State, are directed to ensure that the mentally disturbed patients are not treated by Tantrics, Quacks etc. and to ensure that the mentally disturbed patients are not chained/shackled/fettered/ill-treated or kept in solitary confinement even in the private homes and institutions.

Survey within six months
The State Government is directed to conduct the Epidemiological Survey Data in the State to determine the mentally retarded/disturbed children through National Institute of Mental Help and Neurosciences, Bangalore (Karnataka) within six months from today.

Setting up of Centre for Human Rights, Ethics, Law and Mental Health
1.The State Government is advised to set up Centre for Human Rights, Ethics, Law and Mental Health with the objectives, as stated in paragraph no. 40 of the judgment.

Authorities under the Act
1.The State Government is directed to constitute the State Authority under Section 45 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 within three months from today.
2.The State Government, thereafter, shall constitute the Board to be called 'Mental Health Review Board' as per Section 73 of the Act within eight weeks.

Directions for the State Government under the Act
1.The State Government is directed to provide mental healthcare and treatment to all the persons with mental illness at an affordable cost, of good quality, available in sufficient quantity, accessible geographically and without any discrimination.
2.The State Government is directed to incorporate mental health service into general service at all levels including primary health centers in all health programmes.
3.The State Government is directed to ensure that no person with mental illness including children and illiterate persons are transferred to long distances to access mental health service.
4.The State Government is directed to ensure that every person, with mental illness as per Section 20 is protected from cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in any mental establishment.
5.The State Government is directed as per Section 29 to plan, design and implement programmes for the promotion of mental health and prevention of mental illness in the State.
6.The State Government is also directed to take all necessary measures to give due publicity to the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 through public media, including television, radio, print and online media at regular intervals.
7.The State Government is also directed to ensure that no person or organization establishes or runs mental health establishment unless registered with the authority constituted under the Act.
8.The persons suffering from mental illness shall be admitted in the Establishment as per Section 86 of the Act.

No electro-convulsive therapy
1.The practice of electro-convulsive therapy without the use of muscle relaxants and anaesthesia, except with the express consent of guardian, is prohibited in the State of Uttarakhand.
2.The State Government would ensure that no person with mental illness is subjected to electro-seclusion or solitary confinement.

Mentally ill prisoners/inmates
1.All the Medical officers of the Prison or Jail are directed to send quarterly reports to the concerned Board certifying therein that there are no prisoners with mental illness in the prison or jail.
2.The person in-charge of the State run custodial institution (including beggars homes, orphanages, women's protection homes and children homes) is directed to ensure that any resident of the institution has, or is likely to have, a mental illness, he shall take such resident of the institution to the nearest mental health establishment run or funded by the appropriate Government for assessment and treatment.

Duties of police officers
1.Every police officer in the State of Uttarakhand is directed 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. Every person taken into protection is ordered to be taken to the nearest public health establishment forthwith.
2.It shall also be the duty of every police officer to report to the Magistrate if any person, suffering from mental illness, is being ill-treated or neglected.

Policy in six months
1.The State Government is directed to frame the Policy, as undertaken, to register the children suffering from mental illness within six months.
2.The State Government is also advised to open more Mental Care Establishments taking into consideration the large number of persons suffering from mental illness for their proper treatment, protection and care.
3.The State Government is directed to open District Early Intervention Centers (DEICs) in every district of the State within six months.
4.The State Government is directed to ensure that henceforth, no mentally disturbed/retarded person is found on the streets. The concerned SSP/SPs are directed to shift them to the nearest mental health institutions/place of safety.

All said and done, it is an exemplary and excellent judgment. It will always come to the aid of those who are mentally ill and those whose voice goes unheard and unrepresented. All courts from bottom to the top must study in detail this landmark judgment and try to always adhere to it both in letter and spirit!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
Protection of Child And Juvenile Under Indian Contract Act 1872
Below are Listed Various Views on The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill of 2019 expressed by various Member of Parliament
Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 aims to replace the existing Indian Juvenile Delinquency Law, Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, so that juveniles in conflict with the law in the age group 16-18, involved in Heinous Offences, can be tried as adults.
Two Commissions National Child Rights Commission and State Child Rights Commissions start squabbling amongst themselves over powers to conduct inquiry National Commission For Protection of Child Rights v/s Dr Rajesh Kumar
This Article Gives A Bare Idea About What Are The Procedures And Laws Regarding Trial Of The Juvenile Offenders.
S. Jai Singh v. State Despite the legislative framework that by all means seek to eliminate corporal punishment, the practice has been persistently followed by schools and institutions across the country. How can this be ever tolerated?
Km. Rachna vs UP an order passed by a Judicial Magistrate or Child Welfare Committee sending victim to women protection homes/child care homes cannot be challenged or set aside in a writ of habeas corpus.
Rajendra @ Rajappa vs Karnataka exercise of its criminal appellate jurisdiction that only contradictions in material particulars and not minor contradictions can be a ground to discredit the testimony of the witnesses.
child rapists are steadily rising at a meteoric pace yet we witness that the punishment meted out is not just grossly inadequate
MP v/s Irfan has upheld the death sentence awarded to two men accused of gang rape of an eight year old girl.
Clause (3) of Article 15 of the Constitution empowers the State to make special provisions for children. Going forward, Article 39 also contains various safeguards for children's benefit.
Court on its own motion v State Delhi High Court has ordered that investigating officers probing offences committed by juveniles should obtain documents related to age proof and ensure that the ossification test for determination of age is done within 15 days from the date the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) issues such directions.
Attorney General for India v. Satish touching a child with sexual intent even through clothing is an offence of sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act thus setting aside two separate decisions of the Bombay High Court
Ashok vs Madhya Pradesh the claim of juvenility can be raised before any Court, at any stage, even after disposal of the case. So there should be no more confusion anymore pertaining to this
Ayaan Ali v/s Uttarakhand was finally delivered on February 16, 2022, the Uttarakhand High Court in light of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
Jaya Chakravarti v/s Madhya Prades refused to pass an order of child custody in favour of the Appellant-mother, upon noting that the children themselves had expressed their inclination to reside with their father.
Yogendra Kumar Mishra v. U.P. that was reserved on 31.03.2022 and then finally pronounced on 06.04.2022 has minced just no words to observe that if anyone has been declared as an absconder/proclaimed offender under Section 82 CrPC, he is not entitled to relief of anticipatory bail.
Soumen Biswas @ Litan Biswas vs West Bengal Special Courts to ensure a smooth, prompt and seamless examination of the minor victim of sexual offences.
Vinod Katara vs Uttar Pradesh that lodging juveniles in adult prisons amounts to deprivation of their personal liberty.
Manoj Kumar Vs Haryana that child rape cases are the cases of the worst form of lust for sex, where children of tender age are not even spared in the pursuit of sexual pleasure.
Muhammed Yasin vs Station House Officer that while hearing an application for cancellation of bail, even of an accused booked under the POCSO Act, an opportunity of hearing must be accorded to the accused.
Shri Manik Sunar Vs Meghalaya that was filed by the petitioner-accused who was charged with offences under POCSO and IPC, ordered for the quashing of the offences on grounds that the alleged victim was in a consensual relationship with the accused.
Neena George vs Alwin K Jacob settled position of law that while considering custody matters, Court must pass orders ensuring that the child is not totally deprived of the love, affection and company of one of the parents.
Neena George vs Alwin K Jacob that while considering custody matters, Court must pass orders ensuring that the child is not totally deprived of the love, affection and company of one of the parents.
Anand Kumar vs Lakhan Jatav that his paramilitary background would work to the advantage of the child for his overall growth and personality development.
Shadab Ansari v/s Madhya Pradesh has upheld the decision of the Trial Court to close the rights of the accused in POCSO case nothing that they were indulging in dilatory tactics to defer the minor prosecutrix from testifying.
ABC v Haryana that the plea of juvenility can be raised by a person even after the disposal of the case in terms of conviction and sentence, as per which plea, the authorities shall be bound to conduct an age determination inquiry.
Shubham @ Bablu Milind Suryavanshi v. Maharashtra that on being tried as an adult, the juvenile is not denuded of the statutory right available to him under Section 12 of the Act.
Master X th. Shah Wali Vs J&K that a Sessions Court or a Children’s Court cannot entertain a revision petition against the order of Juvenile Justice Board.
Nesar Ahmed Khan vs Orissa that Muslims cannot seek adoption of minor children under their personal laws and they must strictly follow the prescriptions laid down under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act (‘JJ Act’) to undertake any such adoption.
Rahul Chandel Jatav v/s Madhya Pradesh Government of India to think, deliberate and contemplate about reducing the consent age of the victim from 18 to 16 years in rape cases as defined by the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act
Ajay Yadav vs UP that it is very unfortunate that nowadays, in maximum cases women are filing false FIRs under the POCSO/SC-ST Act using it as a weapon to grab money from the State and this practice should stop.
Bachpan Bachao Andolan vs UOI What is the real icing on the cake in this notable judgment is the most commendable directions that were issued for framing the guidelines on their appointment to the State of Uttar Pradesh since the case was pertaining to an incident in UP.
Prem Kumar vs Statevery rightly quashed a first information report (FIR) that was registered under provision of Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and Section 376 (rape) of IPC
Debarti Nandee vs Ms Tripti Gurha that were made to the Adoption Rules under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 clarifying that the right to adopt children is not a fundamental right.
G Raghu Varma vs Karnataka that the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act was not meant to criminalize consensual sexual relationships between adolescents, but to protect them from sexual abuse.
Showkat Ahmad Mir vs Nighat Begum that the custody of a child with his father can, in no circumstances, be termed as illegal confinement amounting to an offence as the father happens to be the natural guardian of the minor child
Surjeet Khanna vs Haryana that it is mandatory for a parent to inform about the offence against child to the police under Section 19 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).
Ganesh Balai vs Madhya Pradesh That there is no reason to reject the testimony of a child of tender age per se has upheld the conviction and sentence that was passed by the Trial Court in a murder case that was primarily based on the evidence of an 8-year-old child who was the sole eye witness to the murder.
Sebin Thomas vs Kerala that accidental or automatic downloading of child pornography without intent does not constitute an offence under Section 67B of the Information Technology Act, provided no evidence of intent is shown.
X Vs Uttarakhand while extending bail to a juvenile accused in a case registered under Sections 376(3), 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Section 5(j)(ii)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Sister Mercy @ Elizabeth Jose (Devasiya) vs Chhattisgarh that subjecting the child to corporal punishment for reforming him/her cannot be part of education.
Sahil vs NCT of Delhi that POCSO Act is being misapplied as cases are being filed at the behest of the girl’s family who object to her friendship and romantic involvement with a young boy.
Protection of Children From Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, that POCSO Act has become a tool for exploitation and it was never meant to criminalize consensual romantic relationships between adolescents.
Ramji Lal Bairwavs Rajasthan the Rajasthan High Court had quashed the matter that was primarily based on a ‘compromise’ between the victim’s father and teacher.
Top