1. Mentally ill undertrial prisoners detained in psychiatric hospitals for decades without periodic review, beyond maximum sentence for minor offences. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2007 Supreme(SC) 1824
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.G. Balakrishnan, CJI., R.V. Raveendran and Dalveer Bhandari, JJ.
Re: News Item "38 Yrs. In Jail Without Trial Published In Hindustan Times dated 6.2.2006 - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P. (Crl.) No. 296 of 2005, W.P. (Crl.) No. 18 of 2006 (Re. Illegal Detention of Machal Lalung).
Decided On : 24-10-2007
The Court mandated periodic medical reviews and judicial monitoring for mentally ill undertrials, ruling that those detained beyond the maximum statutory sentence for their offence, or over five years in non-grave cases, should be considered for discharge or release.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure - Sections 328, 329, 330, 331, 337, 338 and 339; Prisoners Act, 1900 - Section 30; Mental Health Act, 1987 - Sections 27, 37, 38, 39 and 40 - Detention of mentally ill undertrial prisoners - Lack of periodic medical reports and failure of courts to track cases has led to mentally ill persons languishing in psychiatric hospitals for decades, sometimes exceeding the maximum sentence prescribed for the alleged offences - The Court emphasized that provisions for periodic inspection and reporting under the Mental Health Act must be strictly implemented to ensure such prisoners are not detained indefinitely without review. (Paras 1, 2 and 7)
(B) Guidelines for release of mentally ill prisoners - (i) Reports under Section 39 of the Mental Health Act must be submitted to the concerned Court/Magistrate periodically, and the Court must pass appropriate orders upon receipt. (ii) Where an undertrial prisoner is detained longer than the maximum imprisonment prescribed for the offence (excluding those facing life imprisonment or death), the case shall be treated as closed and discharge under Section 40 of the Act shall be considered. (iii) For those not charged with offences carrying life imprisonment or death, release under Section 330(1) of the Code may be considered if they have been inpatients for five or more years. (iv) For those charged with grave offences (life or death penalty), periodic examinations under Section 39 of the Act must be conducted, reports sent to the court, and hearings held at least once every three months. (Para 8)
Facts of the case:
A news item revealed that several mentally ill undertrial prisoners were confined to psychiatric hospitals for excessive periods, in some cases up to 38 years, despite some being declared fit for trial years earlier. It was observed that many of these individuals were charged with minor offences for which the maximum sentence was far shorter than their actual period of detention. The Court noted a systematic failure in conducting periodic medical check-ups and a lack of judicial oversight in tracking these cases.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the mandatory monthly, quarterly, and half-yearly inspections and reports required under Sections 38 and 39 of the Mental Health Act were not being regularly carried out. Furthermore, trial courts failed to consider whether such prisoners could be released pending trial under Section 330(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Issues: Whether the failure to implement periodic medical reviews and judicial monitoring of mentally ill undertrial prisoners constitutes a violation of their rights and how to ensure their timely release or trial.
Ratio Decidendi: To prevent the indefinite and illegal detention of mentally ill persons, there must be a mandatory mechanism of periodic medical certification and judicial review. Detention exceeding the maximum statutory penalty for an offence justifies the closure of the case and consideration for discharge, while long-term detention for non-grave offences warrants consideration for release on security.
Result: General directions issued to Registrars General of High Courts and Chief Secretaries of State Governments/Union Territories to ensure compliance; matters adjourned by three months.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- criminal procedure
-
mental health law
- admission to psychiatric hospitals
- inspection and reporting
- discharge of mentally ill prisoners
Table of Contents
2. Non-compliance with Sections 38 and 39 of Mental Health Act and CrPC Sections 330, 337, 338, 339 leads to prolonged detention. (Para 4 )
JUDGMENT :
A news item was published on 14th October, 2005 in the Indian Express, New Delhi stating that one Machal Lalung, a resident of Assam continued to languish as a undertrial prisoner in a psychiatric hospital for a period of 38 years even after he was declared fit by the Hospital in 1967. This news item was brought to the notice of this Court and a series of orders were passed. The said Machal Lalung was directed to be released from the psychiatric hospital. The High Courts Registries were required to collect and furnish the particulars of undertrial prisoners lodged in mental asylums. The reports received from the High Courts show that there are several other cases where mentally ill persons who have allegedly committed various offences are kept as undertrial prisoners in various psychiatric hospitals/nursing homes in various States. It appears that there are no periodic reports from these hospitals as to whether these mentally ill persons are fit enough to face trial for the offences for which they had been charged; and the respective courts are also not keeping track of the cases and there has been no regular posting of the cases for long periods. Consequently, several mentally ill undertrial prisoners have remained in the psychiatric hospitals for long periods.
2. In one case in Kerala, an undertrial prisoner has been in psychiatric hospital for 38 years. In another case in Uttar Pradesh, an undertrial prisoner has been in psychiatric hospital for more than 34 years, though the maximum punishment for the offence alleged against him is seven years. There are several undertrial prisoners who have been in psychiatric hospitals for more than 15 years. Whether these persons have been subjected to periodic medical check-up is not known. The nature of their ailments is also not very clear. In some cases, it has been vaguely stated that they suffer from mental abnormality. Many of these undertrial prisoners have been charged with offences of trifle nature, for which maximum sentence prescribed is hardly six months. We find that in many of these cases, the undertrial prisoners have been confined to a psychiatric hospital for more than the period of maximum sentence. It is clear that in such cases, the trial courts have not considered whether the undertrial prisoners could be released pending investigation or trial under Section 330(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, the Code). It is also possible that no friend or relative of the prisoner came forward with sufficient security and seek release under the said provision.
3. There are also several cases where the undertrial prisoners have been charged for offence under Section 302 IPC. In such cases also, it appears that there is no periodic medical check-up, nor periodic consideration by the court as to whether they would be in a position to face trial.
4. Chapter XXV of the Code deals with the accused persons of unsound mind. Section 328 prescribes the procedure in case of accused being a mentally ill person. When a Magistrate has reason to believe that an accused against whom an enquiry is being held, is of unsound mind, he shall inquire into the fact of such unsoundness of mind and shall cause such person to be examined by the civil surgeon of the district or such other medical officer as the State Government may direct, and thereupon shall examine such surgeon or other officer as a witness and shall reduce the examination to writing, and pending such examination and inquiry, the Magistrate may deal with such person in accordance with the provisions of Section 330. On such inquiry, if the Magistrate is of the opinion that the accused is of unsound mind, he shall record a finding to that effect and shall postpone further proceedings in the case. Section 329 provides that if at the trial of any person, it appears to the Magistrate or Court that the person tried is of unsound mind, the Magistrate or Court shall in the first instance, try the fact of such unsoundness
