Supreme Court transfers mental health rights PIL to NHRC for monitoring

The Supreme Court on Tuesday transferred to the NHRC (National Human Rights Commission) a PIL (public interest litigation) seeking implementation of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, and directed the rights body to monitor the matter to ensure protection of the rights and dignity of persons with mental illnesses.

A bench comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and R. Mahadevan said the NHRC should take charge of overseeing compliance with the provisions of the Act while considering the other prayers made in the petition.

The PIL, filed in 2018 by advocate Gaurav Kumar Bansal, had raised serious concerns over the lack of enforcement of the 2017 legislation and instances of human rights violations involving people with mental illnesses.

Taking on record an affidavit filed by the Union government, the bench noted that statutory authorities envisaged under the law — the Central Mental Health Authority, the State Mental Health Authorities (SMHAs) and the Mental Health Review Boards — had been constituted.

However, the court observed that several issues raised by the petitioner remained unresolved and must continue to be monitored by the NHRC.

“Since statutory authorities have now been established, and the grievance relates to monitoring the implementation of the Act, we are transferring the matter to the NHRC for appropriate follow-up and supervision,” the bench said.

Case background

The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 was enacted by Parliament to safeguard the rights of persons with mental illness, including the right to live with dignity, access to treatment, and protection from inhuman or degrading practices.

On 2 March 2023, the Supreme Court had directed the Centre to file an affidavit confirming the establishment and functioning of the statutory bodies and the appointments made under the Act.

Earlier, on 3 January 2019, the apex court had issued notices to the Centre, all states and Union Territories on the PIL, which alleged that the non-implementation of the Act amounted to a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution — the right to life and personal liberty.

The petition cited distressing conditions in a faith-based mental asylum in Budaun, Uttar Pradesh, where patients were allegedly chained, calling it a gross breach of the law and human dignity. The bench had then remarked that such practices were 'a matter of great concern” and “an affront to constitutional values'.

Petitioner’s contentions

Bansal, citing the National Mental Health Survey 2016, argued that around 14 per cent of India’s population requires active mental health intervention and nearly 2 per cent suffer from severe mental disorders.

He contended that chaining or restraining persons with mental illnesses violates Section 20 of the 2017 Act, which guarantees protection from cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.

“Every person with mental illness shall have the right to live with dignity,” the Act states — a principle the petitioner argued has been systematically neglected.

The Supreme Court’s transfer of the case marks a significant shift from judicial oversight to institutional monitoring by the NHRC, which is expected to seek regular compliance reports from the Centre and states to ensure humane and lawful treatment of individuals with mental illnesses.