2002(1) Supreme 508
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(Under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India)
M.B. Shah, B.N. Agrawal and Arijit Pasayat, JJ.
In re : Death of 25 Chained Inmates in Asylum Fire in Tamil Nadu -Petitioner
versus
Union of India & Ors. -Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No. 334 of 2001
Decided on 5-2-2002
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Sr. Advocate (A.C.) and K. Ramamurthy, Sr. Advocate, Pranab Kumar Mullick, Advocate (A.C.), Mrs. Revathy Raghavan, Krishan, Mahajan, Ms. Sunita Sharma, Advocate for Ms. Sushma Suri, Ranji Thomas, Advocate for Javed Mahmood Rao, Sanjay R. Hegde, V.G. Pragasam, Sanjay K. Shandilya, Advocate for Mrs. V.D. Khanna, A. Mariarputham, Prakash Shrivastava, Anil Shrivastav, T.V. Ratnam, K. Subba Rao, Kh. Nobin Singh, Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Ms. A. Subhashini, C. Siddhartha, K.L. Janjani, Y.P. Singh Advocate for Ajay K. Agrawal, Gopal Singh, Ms. Asha G. Nair, Advocate for Corporate Law Group, Tara Chandra Sharma, K.R. Sasiprabhu, Ranjan Mukherjee, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ms. Anu Sawhney, Mrs. Jayshree Anand, AAG. Punjab, Rajeev Sharma, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, J.P. Dhanda, Mrs. Geetanjali Mohan, Advocate for B.S. Banthia, S.V. Deshpande, Arup Banerjee Advocate for Ashok Mathur Advocates.
Held : The directions suggested by the Amicus Curiae in paragraphs Nos. (i) to (iv) and information as sought for be called for. The State Govts. as well as Central Govt. shall file affidavits complying the directions List for 9.4.2002.
ORDER
On the basis of submission note of the Registrar (Judicial) to a news item published in all leading national dailies about a gruesome tragedy in which more than 25 mentally challenged patients housed in a mental asylum at Ervadi in Ramanathapuram district were charred to death, the patients could not escape the blaze as they had been chained to poles or beds, this Court took suo moto action.
2. After considering the factual report, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned senior counsel was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court and notice was also issued to the Union of India.
3. Thereafter, by order dated 15.10.2001 this Court called for the report of the State of Tamil Nadu on the subject and also sought information on the topics which are mentioned, from the State Governments and Union Government on an affidavit of competent authority.
4. Thereafter, when the matter was placed before this Court on 21.1.2002, most of the States sought extension of time for compliance with the order passed by this Court. The matter was adjourned for 29.1.2002. On that day also, some of the State Governments again sought extension of time for compliance with the directions issued by this Court. Further, learned Amicus Curiae submitted that the Mental Health Act, 1987 (for short "the 1987 Act") is not at all implemented by the concerned authorities and there is failure on the part of Central/State Governments to implement the 1987 Act.
5. Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, learned Attorney General appearing on behalf of the Union Government submitted that the 1987 Act is for the benefit of mentally ill persons and is required to be implemented right earnestly. He submitted that the Centre would take appropriate action for implementation of the 1987 Act as early as possible.
6. In our view, it appears that there is slackness on the part of the concerned authorities to implement the laws enacted by the Parliament. This is one such instance.
7. One of the objects of the 1987 Act is to provide a law relating to the treatment and care of the mentally ill persons. Notification for implementing the Act was published in the Gazette of India on 11.1.1993.
8. For the time being we would refer to the definition clause 2(1) which provides mentally ill person to mean a person who is in need of treatment by reason of any mental disorder other than mental retardation. Further, clause 2(q) inter alia provides psychiatric hospital and psychiatric nursing home to mean a nursing home established by any other person for the treatment and care of mentally ill persons and includes a convalescent home established or maintained by any other person for such mentally ill persons. The said section reads thus :-
"2(q) "psychiatric hospital" or "psychiatric nursing home" means a hospital or, as the case may be, a nursing home established or maintained by the Government or any other person for the treatment and care of mentally ill persons and includes a convalescent home established or maintained by the Government or any other person for such mentally ill persons, but does not include any general hospital or general nursing home established or maintained by the Government and which provides also for psychiatric services."
Further, Section 3 provides that -
(1) The Central Government shall establish an Authority for mental health with such designation as it may deem fit.
(2) The Authority established under sub-section (1) shall be subject to the superintendence, direction and control of the Central Government.
(3) The Authority established under sub-section (1) shall-
(a) be in charge of regulation, development, direction and co-ordination with respect to Mental Health Services under the Central Government and all other matters which, under this Act, are the concern of the Central Government or any officer or authority subordinate to the Central Government :
(b) supervise the psychiatric hospitals and psychiatric nursing homes and other Mental Health
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.