Back
Directs State to Consider Renaming 'Mental Health Centres' to Remove Stigma
In a significant move to destigmatize mental healthcare, the on directed the state government to consider renaming all 'Mental Health Centres' across the state. The of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Basant Balaji acted on a suggestion from , who proposed relabeling these facilities as 'Institutes of Behavioural Management'.
The court was hearing an ongoing initiated in , stemming from the ’s directions in . The judges recently conducted visits to three mental health centres at Thiruvananthapuram, Thrissur, and Kozhikode, where they observed “horrific” conditions—including isolation wards resembling “cages”—and inadequate staffing. The renaming proposal emerged as a direct response to the stigma the court witnessed during these inspections.
A Push to End the Label of Stigma
The argued that the term 'Mental Health Centre' carries an unnecessary social stigma that isolates patients and discourages community integration. The court agreed, noting that other hospitals are not called 'Centres of Physical Health', and saw no justification for mental health facilities to be uniquely tagged.
“The ‘Mental Health Centres’, being so called, attract a lot of stigma; and we could see this even when we visited them in the course of the last two weeks or so,” the order stated.
The bench highlighted that while the protocols are governed by the , that alone should not perpetuate the stigma. “Particularly when other hospitals are not called Centres of Physical Health; and therefore, one justifiably cannot comprehend why these Centres should have the tag of being ‘Mental Health’ Centres,” the judges observed.
Amicus Suggests a Fresh Identity
proposed renaming the centres to 'Institutes of Behavioural Management', a change she argued would shift focus from illness to management and recovery. The court refrained from endorsing a specific name but emphasized the importance of the underlying goal: removing stigma from vulnerable patients.
“We are not suggesting a particular name, though we have recorded the input of the learned ; but are of the firm view that the Government must look into this issue,” the bench clarified.
State Tasked with Policy Decision
The court treated the matter as a policy issue rather than an adversarial dispute, directing the competent authority of the state government to examine the suggestion and report back by . “It is in the interest of the vulnerable sections of the patients that they be kept away from stigma and that the Centres are considered to be favourable to community welfare and development, rather than for a particular kind of illness,” the order said.
The (IA No.25/2026) has been adjourned to allow the state to respond. The court made it clear that the inquiry is not adversarial, but a collaborative effort to improve the welfare of patients and the community at large.
