Section 105 of Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 is a protective mechanism for persons with mental illness, not invocable by litigants to challenge adversary's capacity in ongoing civil disputes; requires proof of substantial mental disorder, absent in transient hypoglycaemic symptoms.

JUDGMENT :

FARHAN P. DUBASH, J.

1. The present Interim Application (IA), preferred under Section 105 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 (MHA), has been filed by the Applicant/Plaintiff seeking the appointment of an independent Medical Board to examine and assess the mental condition of Defendant No. 1, who is the Applicant's father and who is alleged to be suffering from mental illness. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that several disputes, both civil and criminal are presently pending between the Applicant and Defendant No. 1 before various fora across Maharashtra and beyond. The captioned suit is one such proceeding, wherein the Applicant seeks a one-third share in the coparcenary/ancestral properties of Defendant No. 1.

2. By way of the present IA, the Applicant asserts that his father, Defendant No. 1 suffers from mental illness and, on that basis, challenges his mental competency and capacity to contest the captioned suit. In support of this contention, the Applicant relies upon a medical certificate issued by Metrocure Multispecialty Clinic and Diagnostic Centre (the Medical Certificate). The Applicant further alleges that he has been deliberately denied access to his father by the Applicant's step-mother, who is a medical doctor by profession and with whom Defendant No. 1 presently resides. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Applicant has preferred the present IA. The present IA thus raises an important question - Whether the statutory mechanism intended to safeguard the rights and welfare of persons with mental illness can be invoked by a litigant as a tool to challenge the legal capacity of an adversary?

3. The Applicant, Mr. Jitendra Gorakh Megh, appears in-person. He places reliance on the Medical Certificate and contends that the observations and diagnosis recorded therein clearly establish that his father, Defendant No. 1 suffers from mental illness. Placing reliance on Section 105 of the MHA, the Applicant submits that by reason of such mental illness, Defendant No. 1 is not in a position to meaningfully contest the pending legal proceedings that the Applicant has instituted against him. In the circumstances, the Applicant urges that an independent Medical Board ought to be constituted to examine Defendant No. 1 and render a determination in that regard. On these grounds, the Applicant presses for the reliefs sought in the present IA.

4. Per contra, Mr. Aditya Sharma, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Defendant No. 1, vehemently refutes the allegations levelled in the present IA. He submits that Defendant No. 1 does not suffer from any mental illness or incapacity, whether as alleged or otherwise, and that the assertions made by the Applicant in that regard are false and untenable. At the outset, Mr. Sharma submits that the present IA constitutes a gross abuse of the process of law and is not maintainable, and accordingly, presses for its dismissal.

5. He draws the Court's attention to Interim Application (L) No. 34827 of 2025, previously filed by the Applicant before this Court seeking reliefs identical to those sought in the present IA, which came to be unconditionally