The Court emphasized the need for specialized care under the Mental Healthcare Act, while facilitating the petitioner's access to the 'alleged detenue' in a hospital setting.

Devan Ramachandran, J.

We considered this matter on 02.03.2026; and, in order to avoid repetition, we reproduce the order we passed on the said day, after hearing both sides, as under:

“The petitioner alleges that the ‘alleged detenue’ has been hospitalized in a Mental Healthcare Centre – to which the 7th respondent is the Director - by respondents 4, 5 and 6, namely her husband, mother and sister, without any cause.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that his client has not been able to see the ‘alleged detenue’; and therefore, that she wants to be her bystander. He prayed that his client be allowed to be with the ‘alleged detenue’ from 2 p.m. this afternoon in the hospital, undertaking that she will not go away from there and will be there 24 hours until we pass orders.

3. We certainly find the offer of the petitioner to be appreciable because she is one of the sisters of the ‘alleged detenue’ and says that she is concerned about her.

4. However, when we interacted with respondents 5 and 6, they said that the ‘alleged detenue’ requires assistance because she has been exhibiting deep psychological trauma for a very long time and that she had even attempted to take her own life a couple of times.

5. We do not know the truth yet, and we want the 7^th respondent to give us a report of the present condition of the ‘alleged detenue’ on the next posting date.

6. Though this is a petition, seeking the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, we intend to involve also under the Mental Healthcare Act , 2017, adverting to the issues presented.

7. We, therefore, direct the petitioner to hand over a copy of this Writ Petition to Sri.Ramkumar Nambiar, learned Amicus Curiae, appointed by this Court in the Mental Healthcare Act matters today itself.

We adjourn this matter to be called on 04.03.2026 and permit the petitioner to be the bystander for the ‘alleged detenue’ at the hospital from 2 p.m. today until we pass orders. We record the undertaking of the learned counsel for the petitioner that she will not leave the hospital even for a moment during the aforesaid time.”

2. Today, we have received a report from the 7^th respondent – Hospital, which indicates that the “alleged detenue” requires specialized assistance.

3. Mercifully, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as also the party respondents, agreed that the “alleged detenue” can be shifted to the Thrissur Medical College Hospital, the expenses for which will be met by the 4^th respondent – husband; but with full access to her and her treatment by the petitioner, who is her sister.

4. Sri.Ramkumar Nambiar – learned Amicus Curiae appointed by this Court under the Mental Healthcare Act matters, submitted that the afore would be a good course to adopt because, the “alleged detenue” is not suffering from any condition which is incurable, but can be easily controlled under expert care. He suggested that the Medical College Hospital be directed to constitute a proper Board in psychiatric matters, so that the “alleged detenue' can be evaluated and her further treatment protocols specified.

5. Sri.N.B.Sunil Nath – learned Government Pleader, submitted that the official respondents will abide by any order to be issued by this Court.

6. When we consider the facts pleaded and the report available before us, we do not think this is a case where this Court should invoke the provisions of the Mental Healthcare Act at this stage, because the parties are in consent that the “alleged detenue” can be given the best available care. 7. We, therefore, accede to the suggestions at the bar made by both sides, as also the learned Amicus Curiae; and order that the 7^th respondent will discharge the “alleged detenue”, on the request of respon