ORDER :

1. The husband of the writ petitioner figures as the first accused in Crime No.93 of 2021 on the file of Thattaparai Police Station, Thoothukudi District. Following the death of one Brahma Rajan, his wife Revathi lodged a complaint leading to registration of the said case for various offences including Section 306 of IPC. Provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003 and SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 were also invoked. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Brahmma Rajan had availed loans from the three accused named in the FIR. The accused allegedly were collecting exorbitant interest from the deceased. Unable to bear the debt burden, he committed suicide on 14.09.2021. He left behind a suicide note implicating the three accused.

2. The writ petitioner's husband was arrested on 21.10.2021 and remanded to judicial custody on 22.10.2021. He was admitted in Thoothukudi Government Hospital for treatment on 23.10.2021. He was discharged from the hospital on 03.11.2021 and again readmitted on 06.11.2021 for treatment. His bail application is still pending consideration and no order has been passed for release.

3. In the meanwhile, this writ petition came to be filed for shifting the petitioner's husband to Tirunelveli Government Hospital for better treatment. The writ petitioner has pleaded that her husband is suffering from psychiatric ailments, particularly, mental bipolarity. Notice was issued and Shri.G.Chandeesh, IPS., the investigation officer appeared in person. I am happy to record that Shri.T.Senthil Kumar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as the Investigation Officer assisted the court wholeheartedly and did not treat the proceedings as adversarial.

4. The petitioner's husband has been taking treatment in Sneka Mind Care Institute, Tirunelveli since 2019. The treatment records have been produced before me. I heard the petitioner also in person. She told me in the open court that her husband has to be persuaded to take nine tablets per day. I am more than satisfied that the petitioner's husband is suffering from mental illness. However, the police as well as the prison authorities were not aware of his mental condition. And that is why, he was treated like a normal accused. Before producing him for remand, he was medically examined. The proforma report certifies that he was fit for remand. Interestingly, the duty doctor who examined the accused is an ENT Specialist. To the questions as to whether the accused is suffering from any illness or is under medication, the answers have been noted in the negative.

5. When the remand prisoner is mentally ill, his condition can be ascertained only from his family members or those who have been taking care of him. No purpose will be served by posing questions mechanically to the concerned person himself. Those who have even a passing acquaintance with such matters know that the patient is often in the denial mode. The patient has to be cajoled into submitting to treatment protocol.

6. Section 20(1) of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 states that every person with mental illness shall have a right to live with dignity. Construed in the light of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the expression “every person” would obviously include an arrestee/remand prisoner too. In the decision reported in (2019) 7 SCC 1 (Accused X vs. State of Maharastra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the aspiration of the aforesaid Act is to provide mental healthcare facility for those who are in need including prisoners and that the State governments are obliged under Section 103 of the Act to set up a mental health establishment in the medical wing of at least one prison in each State and Union Territory so that prisoners with mental illness may ordinarily be referred to and cared for in the said mental health establishment.

7. It is the duty of the State to address the special needs of the arrestee/remand prisoner who is mentally ill. It is