Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
S. MURALIDHAR, C. HARI SHANKAR, JJ.
Sangamitra Acharya and Ors - Appellant
Versus
State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors - Respondent
W.P. (Crl.) 1804 of 2017 and C.M. No. 9963 of 2017
Decided On : 18-04-2018
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 21 - Anaesthetic substance - Administration - Negligence of duty - Consequences of - Anaesthetic substance was administered to Z without ascertaining whether she in fact was a psychiatric patient - Ambulance staff grossly neglected the duty of care owed to Z - They proceeded to abet the abduction of Z and administered drugs to her by injection in the absence of any medical records - A peremptory direction is issued to the Government of NCT of Delhi to take action in regard to Almas.
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 21 - Forcibly expulsion - Forcibly injecting with a sedative - Role of police - Disciplinary action, ordered - A group of persons barges into a house, pins down a person forcibly, injects her with a sedative, and tries to take her away in an ambulance - A policeman cannot possibly be under the bona fide belief that all this was done in her best interest - HC Praveen failed in his duty of protecting the life and liberty of a citizen - Inquiry of the DCP shows that HC Praveen was present - Despite these lapses no disciplinary action has been taken against HC Praveen - Full-fledged inquiry is order to be conducted by the police into the roles of SI Yogesh Kumar and HC Praveen in this entire matter.
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 21 - Fundamental right - Violation by individual - Protection of - Protection against an attack on the right of life, liberty, privacy and dignity can be sought not only against the State but also against non-State actors - Article 21 places an obligation both on state and non-state actors.
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 21 - Fundamental rights - Violation - Compensation - Scope of - Involuntary admission of a person to mental health facility against her Wishes - Gross violation of fundamental rights to life, liberty and privacy - Compensation must be granted - Court directs that, Z will be paid compensation - Rs. 3 lakhs by CIMBS - Rs. 1 lakh each by Almas and the State - Rs. 3 lakhs by her parents - Compensation amounts will be paid by demand draft in Z's name and will be deposited by Z in her own account - Z will be free to utilize the amount in whichever way she deems fit - This will not preclude Z from seeking other appropriate remedies in any other proceedings.
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 21 - Personal choice - Forcible removal - Fundamental rights - Violation - A 23 year old woman, Z - Z began to exercise her personal choice as regards her career - Trouble started - She chose to pursue a career in music and spent more time with her music teacher - Z was an adult, her choices were unacceptable to her parents Z was forcibly removed from the house of the Petitioners by her parents - Z was admitted to CIMBS at the instance of her parents - Z's parents have violated her fundamental rights to life, liberty by filing false affidavit - Two previous attempts to get her to be declared to be mentally unsound - Actions of Z's parents were in violation of Z's fundamental rights to life, liberty and the right to dignity.
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 21 - Right choice - Coercive action - Right to life - Liberty - A person should be protected against coercive retributive action of her parents - Making personal life choices - Court shall not hesitate to exercise its jurisdiction to grant relief - Court would be recognizing that the threat to the right of choice of a person and thereby right to life, liberty, and dignity can very well come from the person's own parents irrespective of the age and gender of such person.
Mental Health Act, 1987 - Section 19(1), (2) - Mental hospital - Admission - Breach of provision - Effect of - Z was, to begin with, treated as a person who was not able to express her willingness as a voluntary patient - On the advice of a doctor other than the medical officer in charge Z was admitted as an in-patient - Basic requirement has been violated - Z was admitted into CIMBS as an in-patient without any clear determination - Serious flaw in the entire procedure followed by the hospital under the MHA - Notes made by the doctors who examined Z speak to the contrary - Serious breach of the law and professional ethics - Action ought to be taken against the above doctors by the MCI - Z is permitted to file a formal complaint with the MCI - MCI will deal with it promptly and render a decision.
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
1. Important questions of law arise for determination in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by a teacher of classical music, and his wife (Petitioners 2 and 1 respectively), seeking a writ of habeas corpus. These questions involve interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Mental Health Act, 1987 ('MHA') in light of the right to life, liberty, dignity and in light of the right to privacy and autonomy of an adult female, as guaranteed in the Constitution of India.
2. The chief protagonist in this petition is a 23 year old woman, Z (name withheld for reasons of privacy). Around 5 pm on 11th June 2017, Z was forcibly taken away from the residence of her music teacher in Khirki Extension, Delhi with whom she had been residing since she turned 18. This was done at the behest of Z's parents and brother, with the help of the local police of Police Station (PS) Malviya Nagar, and an ambulance service. She was taken away to a privately run mental hospital and kept there without her consent till the morning of 13th June 2017. Pursuant to the orders passed on 12th June 2017 in this petition, Z was produced before this Court on 13th June 2017. Z returned to the Petitioners' residence that day on the orders of this Court. But that obviously was not the end of the matter.
3. In the hearings that ensued over the next few months, this Court heard the submissions of the Petitioners and Z, her parents and brother, the police, the private mental hospital and the ambulance service. The records of the police, the private mental hospital and the ambulance service and the documents produced by the parents and brother of Z were examined. The Court was assisted by Mr. Raj Shekhar Rao, Advocate, appointed as Amicus Curiae.
4. In the judgment that follows the Court has concluded that the forcible taking away of Z from the residence of the Petitioners on 11th June 2017 and her consequent detention at the private mental hospital till the morning hours of 13th June 2017 was illegal and unconstitutional and violative of her fundamental rights to life, liberty, dignity and privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and Section 19 of the MHA. The Court has passed consequential orders fastening liability on each of the actors responsible for the above illegal acts and awarded Z token compensation even while leaving it open to her to seek other appropriate legal remedies for further reliefs.
The Respondents
5. The State of the National Capital Territory of the Delhi represented by the Station House Officer (SHO) of PS Malviya Nagar is Respondent No. 1. Z's mother, father and brother are Respondents 2 to 4 respectively. The Cosmos Institute of Mental Health and behavioral Sciences ('CIMBS'), Delhi Psychiatry Centre, the private mental health facility at 35, Defence Enclave in Preet Vihar, Delhi, its Director Dr. Sunil Mittal, and the other mental health professionals associated with CIMBS - Dr. Sameer Kalani and Dr. Raj Mishra - participated in the hearings by filing their respective affidavits and producing the relevant record. The Almas Ambulance Service ('Almas') through its Director Dr. Israul Haque Shaikh, and its employees viz., Mr. Abdul Gaffar, Mr. Virender Kumar Mishra, and Ms. Anamika Tiwari have also participated in the hearings by filing their respective affidavits and producing the record. These parties have been represented by counsel. They have also filed their respective written submissions.
6. The Court, therefore, considers it appropriate to formally implead CIMBS, Dr. Mittal, Dr. Mishra, and Dr. Kalani as Respondents 5 to 8 respectively. Almas, Dr. Shaikh, Mr. Gaffar, Mr. Mishra and Ms. Tiwari are impleaded as Respondents 9 to 13 respectively.
The background
7. During the summer vacation of this Court in 2017, this petition was first mentioned for listing on 12th June 2017. The Petitioners rushed to this Court concerned about the safety and security of Z. The Petitioners state
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
