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

2019 Supreme(J&K) 529

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
Rashid Ali Dar, J.
Suresh Gupta – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
OWP No. 381 of 2019 & IA No. 1 of 2019
Decided On : 30-05-2019

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Amit Gupta
For the Respondent: Sudesh Magotra, Vishal Bharti

Headnote:

Writ of Mandamus - Mental Health Care Act, 2017 - Section 73 - [MENTAL HEALTH REVIEW BOARD, APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AND MANAGER] - The court discussed the absence of provisions for the appointment of guardian and manager of mentally ill persons under the Mental Health Care Act, 2017. It highlighted the repealed provisions of the Mental Health Act, 1987, and the need for a mechanism to address the vacuum created by the absence of a new policy or scheme under the 2017 Act.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to constitute a Mental Health Review Board under Section 73 of the Mental Health Care Act, 2017 for appointing a guardian and manager for a mentally ill person, Seema Gupta. The petitioner, Seema Gupta's husband, argued that she required a guardian and manager for her welfare and maintenance due to her mental illness and ownership of property.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was no mechanism available for redressal of the petitioner's grievance under the Mental Health Care Act, 2017. It noted the absence of provisions for the appointment of guardian and manager of mentally ill persons under the new Act and discussed the repealed provisions of the Mental Health Act, 1987.

Issues: The issues revolved around the absence of provisions for the appointment of guardian and manager of mentally ill persons under the Mental Health Care Act, 2017, and the need for a mechanism to address the vacuum created by the absence of a new policy or scheme under the 2017 Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court invoked its jurisdiction under Section 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 103 of the Constitution of J&K to address the absence of provisions for the appointment of guardian and manager of mentally ill persons under the Mental Health Care Act, 2017. It also referred to the repealed provisions of the Mental Health Act, 1987 and the Sri Pratab Laws Consolidation Act to overcome the difficulty experienced by the petitioner and his mentally ill wife.

Final Decision: The court granted a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to expedite the process for the constitution of the Mental Health Review Board. It also allowed the petitioner to approach the District Court for the appointment of guardian and manager of mentally ill persons under the repealed Act of 1987, until appropriate statutory provision is brought into operation to address the vacuum created by the absence of a new policy or scheme under the 2017 Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. Writ of Mandamus is sought in terms of the instant petition for directing the respondent No. 2 to constitute a Mental Health Review Board under Section 73 of Mental Health Care Act, 2017 for disposing of the work assigned under the Act and make necessary follow up in terms of the said statute regarding management of property of the mentally ill persons and also with regard to their care.

2. The petitioner's case, as set out in the petition, is:-

(i) that he is the husband of Seema Gupta who is not mentally fir as she can't make a rational judgment. She is of unsound mind and can't take decision on her own. She requires somebody to take care of her as well as her moveable and immoveable property on her name;

(ii) that Seema Gupta is owning and possessing one plot of land bearing Plot No. 324 measuring 30x55 duly situated at Sector-No. 3, housing Colony, Channi Himmat, Jammu apart from this plot she is also having saving bank account bearing A/c No. 37658047903 which is being operated in respondent No. 3 bank where her monthly pension is credited;

(iii) that Seema Gupta was a teacher earlier and she took superannuation because of her health issues and her monthly pension is coming in this account operated in respondent No. 3 bank and all her pensionary benefits in the shape of gratuity and other benefits have also been deposited by the employer in this saving bank account bearing A/c No. 37658047903 which is being operated in respondent No. 3 bank. The petitioner being husband of Seema Gupta is also made nominee in the saving bank account being operated in respondent No. 3 bank and to manage the above said present and future properties of Seema Gupta a guardian is required to manage and take care of her above said properties and also of Seema Gupta because she on her own can't do anything as she is of unsound mind and can't take a decision. She has been suffering from mental problem for the last number of years and the petitioner is taking care of her being husband;

(iv) that as above-said it is the petitioner herein who is taking care of Smt. Seema Gupta for the last number of years, so being husband he can be made guardian of Seema Gupta as well as manager of property because as above said every month the above said account is credited with her pension and moreso the petitioner is also having her money deposited in that account which she got by way of superannuation, so to operate this account also manager is required so the petitioner herein can be made manager of Seema Gupta to take care of her properties which can be spent over her welfare and disease;

(v) that apart from mental unsoundness she is also suffering from multiple problems for which lot of money is required and this money can be properly arranged from the moveable and immoveable properties of Seema Gupta by the guardian only who will continuously work for her welfare in every manner. Minimum Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 60,000/- is required to take care of Smt. Seema Gupta per month and this expenses can be met only if somebody is appointed as a guardian and manager of her properties, so a direction can be issued to appoint the petitioner the guardian of Smt. Seema Gupta for her welfare and maintenance which is a spirit of the Mental Health Care Act, 2017;

(vi) that in the earlier act i.e. Mental Health Act, 1987 there was a provision enshrined for the appointment of guardian and manager of a mentally disabled person but unfortunately this old act has been repealed and the new act has been brought into an existence by the parliament under the name Mental Health Care Act, 2017 wherein no provision has been envisaged pertaining to the appointment of guardian of mentally ill person and for manager of property which as per the earlier Act "Mental Health Act, 1987" categorically revealed, so an ambiguous and lawlessness situation is arisen for the appointment of guardian and manager under the new act;

(vii) that under the new Act also it is the mental Health Review Boar

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