Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
Jomon Jacob, S/o. Jacob – Appellant
Versus
State Election Commission, Represented By Secretary Kerala State Election Commission Office Thiruvananthapuram – Respondent
The court's decision in this case emphasizes the importance of safeguarding the rights and dignity of individuals with mental health conditions, particularly in the context of voting rights. The court clarified that unless a person has been legally declared of unsound mind by a competent court, they are presumed to have the capacity to make decisions regarding their mental health and, by extension, their participation in voting (!) (!) .
The court rejected the petitioners' attempt to exclude voters based solely on residence in a rehabilitation center or presumed mental illness without concrete evidence or proper legal procedures. It held that mere residence in a rehabilitation facility does not automatically imply incapacity, and such assumptions without proper declaration are unjust and potentially discriminatory (!) (!) .
Furthermore, the court stressed that the determination of mental illness must adhere to accepted medical standards and that the legal process for declaring someone of unsound mind is essential. The Act defines mental illness narrowly, excluding mental retardation and emphasizing the need for a competent court declaration before disqualification can occur (!) (!) (!) .
The court also highlighted the social and emotional harm that labeling individuals as mentally ill without proper evidence can cause, including social stigma and discrimination. It underscored that mental illness is not a moral failing and that individuals with mental health conditions are entitled to their fundamental rights, including the right to vote (!) (!) .
In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition due to the absence of affected parties as parties in the case and the lack of evidence to support the petitioners' claims. It reaffirmed that any exclusion from electoral rolls must follow due process, and assumptions without proper legal declaration are unjustified. The decision promotes inclusion, respect for individual rights, and adherence to legal standards in determining mental capacity for electoral participation.
JUDGMENT :
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
Persons with mental illness or persons with intellectual disabilities are also citizens of this country, and they are our brothers and sisters. Section 4 of the Mental Health Care Act, 2017 (for short Act 2017) says that every person, including a person with mental illness, shall be deemed to have the capacity to make decisions regarding their mental health care or treatment, if such person has the abilities mentioned in sub clauses (a) to (c) of that section. A strange prayer is sought for in this Writ Petition. According to the petitioners, voters who are currently in a rehabilitation centre for persons with mental disabilities are unable to cast their votes according to their will, and therefore, their votes are to be kept in a separate electronic voting machine and recorded digitally while they cast their votes in the ensuing general election of 2025. No documents are produced to show that they are mentally challenged or have a mental illness. They are not even a party in this writ petition, at least in a representative capacity. What an insult to those persons who are said to be in a rehabilitation centre!
2. I will narrate the facts in this case
The court recognized the right to vote for individuals with mental health conditions unless legally declared otherwise, stressing the importance of dignity and inclusion.
Judicial review is constrained by public health laws, and SOPs enacted to manage infectious disease outbreaks can lawfully restrict voting rights.
The right to vote is a constitutional right, not merely a statutory right, and subsidiary legislation cannot infringe upon it, according to the Federal Constitution.
The court upheld the exclusion of petitioners from the voters list for failing to meet statutory eligibility requirements, emphasizing limited judicial intervention in ongoing election processes.
The exclusion or inclusion of names in the voters' list does not warrant interference by the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ-applicant was relegate to avail statutory r....
The finality of the electoral roll and the inability to challenge its validity in an election petition.
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
