SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Cal) 282

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
AMRITA SINHA, J.
Akhil Bandhu Saha - Appellant
Versus
The Member Secretary, State Legal Services Authority & Others - Respondent
WPA. No. 436 of 2019
Decided On : 23-02-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the writ Petitioner:Pratyush Patwari, Suryasarathi Basu, Mita Ghosh (Das), Advocates.
For the Respondents:R1, Partha Sarathi Bhattacharya, Sr. Advocate, A. Sen, R2, Ashim Kumar Ganguly, Karabi Roy, Advocates.

Offensive communications do not necessarily indicate mental illness, and financial distress and frustration can be considered as reasons for offensive behavior.

Headnote:

Mental Health Care Act - Jurisdiction of Legal Services Authority - Sections 2(s), 4(3), 5, 6(2), 7, 24, 95(d)

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenges an order referring him for psychiatric treatment by the State Legal Services Authority, claiming it was without jurisdiction and violated principles of natural justice. The petitioner was forcefully taken for psychiatric evaluation, alleging violation of fundamental rights.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's behavior, though offensive, did not conclusively prove mental illness. It noted the financial distress and frustration due to delayed legal proceedings as reasons for the offensive communications. The court set aside the order and rejected the petitioner's compensation claim, cautioning against similar behavior in the future.

Issues: Jurisdiction of Legal Services Authority, Violation of Natural Justice, Alleged Forceful Arrest, Misuse of Official Position, Violation of Fundamental Rights

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that offensive communications do not necessarily indicate mental illness and cautioned against making wild and untrue allegations against judicial officers. It considered the financial distress and frustration as reasons for the petitioner's behavior.

Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, the compensation claim was rejected, and the petitioner was cautioned against repeating similar behavior in the future.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 11th December, 2018 issued by the Member Secretary, State Legal Services Authority, West Bengal (‘SLSA’ for short) whereby the petitioner was referred for psychiatric treatment on the ground that he was found to be showing strong symptoms of mental illness.

The petitioner claims that he is entitled to free legal aid under Article 39A of the Constitution and according to the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.

Though initially free legal aid was provided to the petitioner by the State Legal Services Authority, but in November, 2018 the petitioner was communicated the show cause dated 11th November, 2015 passed by the Registrar cum Deputy Secretary, SLSA, West Bengal to as to why the legal aid rendered to him shall not be withdrawn.

The petitioner by a communication dated 15th November, 2018 submitted his reply to the show cause before SLSA. Upon consideration of his reply, the Member Secretary, SLSA passed the impugned order.

The petitioner submits that the order dated 11th December, 2018 is without jurisdiction. The Member Secretary, SLSA does not have the jurisdiction to come to any finding about the mental health of a person. The Member Secretary does not have any authority to opine that the petitioner shows strong symptoms of mental illness.

It has been contended that the order dated 11th December, 2018 has been passed as per direction of the Executive Chairman, SLSA and the Hon’ble Chief Justice of this Court who is the patron-in-Chief, SLSA. The said direction of the Hon’ble Chief Justice was never intimated to the petitioner. There has been violation of principle of natural justice.

The Executive Chairman or the Hon’ble Chief Justice does not have any jurisdiction to comment upon the mental health of any person. The order dated 11th December, 2018 is without jurisdiction, contrary to the provisions of the Mental Health Care Act, 2017 and has been passed without following the principles of natural justice.

The petitioner, through his learned advocate, submitted a letter before the Member Secretary, SLSA on 17th December, 2018 mentioning that he did not suffer from any mental illness, is mentally fit and do not require any psychiatric help.

Despite objection given by the petitioner to the order dated 11th December, 2018, the petitioner was forcefully arrested from the High Court compound and kept in custody for several hours and thereafter produced before Dr. Pradip Kumar Saha, Director, Institute of Psychiatry on 8th January, 2019.

It has been contended that there are several litigations filed by the petitioner against several authorities including the CBI, and if the petitioner is alleged to be suffering from mental illness, then all the legal proceedings will be rendered infructuous.

It has been alleged that the respondent authorities misused their official position and have acted in violation of the fundamental right and the right to privacy and the right to live with dignity. The act of the Member Secretary, SLSA is contrary to the principle of natural justice as no opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend himself or to disprove the allegation made against him in the impugned order dated 11th December, 2018.

Learned advocate for the petitioner relies upon several sections of the Mental Health Care Act, 2017, especially Sections 2(s), 4(3), 5, 6(2), 7, 24 and 95(d).

Reference has been made to the patient information recorded by the doctor Department of Health and Family Welfare, Institute of Psychiatry when the petitioner was produced before the doctor on 8th January, 2019. The recording of the doctor does not mention that the petitioner is in need of psychiatric help. It has been submitted that the details of the personal statement of the petitioner as recorded by the doctor clearly suggests that the petitioner is in a fit state of mind, does not suffer from any mental illness and not in need of any psychiatric help.

Prayer has been made for setting aside the order

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top