The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to issue directions for urgent medical attention and placement of individuals under proper care and treatment in accordance with the Mental Health Care Act, 2017.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. - This hearing has been done through video conferencing.

2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking directions to be issued to AIIMS, SHO - Chitranjan Park and the IHBAS ('Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences) who are arrayed as Respondent Nos. 2-4. The case of the Petitioner is that her son who is now 32 years of age had started showing abnormal behaviour since he was 17 years of age. In 2006 he was diagnosed at AIIMS with 'Bipolar disorder and Psychosis'. He was being taken repeatedly to doctors and hospitals and since 2006 he was prescribed medications by doctors at AIIMS. In 2019 his symptoms aggravated, and he was again taken to AIIMS. He was then diagnosed with 'Schizophrenia'. Owing to the son's mental condition, he would get aggressive towards his parents and also exhibit violent behaviour. He is stated to have severely injured them on some occasions. In July 2020, the Petitioner's husband had to get a hip surgery in 2020 owing to the son's violent behaviour. In August 2020, the Petitioner was assaulted by her son. His behaviour was reported by the Petitioner to the SHO of the concerned area. The Petitioner also filed a complaint under Sections 101 and 102 of the Mental Health Care Act, 2017 as also under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, which was dismissed on 16th January 2021. A revision petition was preferred challenging the said order, which was also dismissed on 23rd January 2021.

3. In view of the mental condition of her son, who is 32 years of age, the Petitioner wishes that the name of her son be not revealed in the order today. The reliefs sought in the present petition are:

"

a) Issue a Writ, Order or direction in the nature of Mandamus and/or a Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus calling for the records of the case and after examining the legality and validity of the same direct the Respondent No. 's 2 and 4 to provide medical treatment to the Petitioner's son, ..... (Petitioner's son), Son Of Shri Sameer Chattopadhayay, Resident of I-1600, Chitranjan Park, New Delhi110019 in consonance with Article 21 of the Constitution of India;

b) Issue a Writ, Order or direction in the nature of Mandamus and/or a Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus calling for the records of the case and after examining the legality and validity of the same direct the Respondent No.3 to provide adequate police protection/assistance to the Doctors at the Respondent No. 's 2 and 4 Hospital in rendering medical treatment to the Petitioner's son, . (Petitioner's son), Son Of Shri Sameer Chattopadhayay, Resident of I-1600, Chitranjan Park, New Delhi-110019;

c) Issue a Writ, Order or direction in the nature of Mandamus and/or a Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus calling for the records of the case and after examining the legality and validity of the same direct the Respondent No.3 to provide adequate police assistance to the Petitioner."

4. This Court had, vide order dated 26th March, 2021, sought a report from AIIMS where he was examined in February 2021. The report has been received from AIIMS. The report of AIIMS, dated 9th April 2021 reads:

" ......(Petitioner's son), 32 years old male, came to the Emergency Services, AIIMS, New Delhi on 2nd February 2021 at 5:46PM.

He was examined by a Senior Resident in Psychiatry and the case was discussed with a Professor of Psychiatry. There was history of recent violent behaviour. He was not cooperative and appeared aggressive. A provisional diagnosis of Schizophrenia was made.

Admission to Psychiatry Ward was considered for which his COVID testing was done. He was given injection Haloperidol + Phenargan. While the COVID report was awaited, he was kept in emergency. Next day (3rd February 2021) early morning, he ran away from the emergency and hence, could not be admitted. His COVID report came negative later."

5. From the above report it is clear that the Petitioner has been again diagnosed with "Schizop