Back
"No Transparency, No Accountability": Considers of Mental Health Centres
The has taken a significant step toward addressing the deplorable conditions in the state's mental health centres by considering a comprehensive . On Tuesday, a Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Basant Balaji recorded that it is actively weighing a proposal to open these centres to scrutiny by eminent citizens and the press, citing a complete lack of transparency and widespread . The Court’s observations, which included describing the current state of affairs as “worse than jail,” underscore a growing judicial impatience with the failure of the state government to implement earlier directives.
The matter arises from a long-standing initiated in following the ’s directions in . The case has been pending for over two decades, and the High Court has been monitoring the conditions in three major mental health centres located in Thiruvananthapuram, Thrissur, and Kozhikode. The Bench had personally inspected these facilities more than a month ago and issued urgent directions for improvement. However, during the latest hearing, the Court expressed dismay that its orders had not been complied with, prompting it to consider more stringent measures.
A ‘Horror Place’ and Judicial Outrage
The judges did not mince words when describing what they witnessed. “The so-called, I don't want to use that name – Mental Health Centre. It is not a Health Centre. It is a horror place…Every human right is violated in that system,” the Bench observed orally. The Court further noted that the conditions were so appalling that it had initially reserved its words, hoping the state would respond appropriately. “Our visit to the first centre was over a month ago but we do not see any change in the ground level as of now. We believe that our words are not being taken seriously,” the order stated.
The Court attributed the lack of improvement to a “shroud of secrecy” that prevents even the press from accessing the facilities. “No one knows what is happening there, not even the press…No transparency, no accountability, nothing. Worse than jail,” the judges remarked. They emphasised that this secrecy was being misused and abused, and that privacy concerns could not be allowed to shield gross .
The Proposal
In response to these concerns, the suggested a of all mental health centres, with personnel of the press being given restricted or supervised access. The Court indicated that it would act on this suggestion in due course, noting that the current regime of secrecy has yielded no tangible benefits for patients or bystanders. “We will have right thinking citizens to visit this place now. That is the next step. We will make the press also go in…Let there not be secrecy,” the Bench added.
The is envisioned as a mechanism to ensure accountability and transparency, which the Court believes are essential to prevent the ongoing violation of . The judges observed that the manner of violation of human rights – “perhaps unintended and unwitting” – is so rampant that no state can afford to lose even a second in addressing it. The Court’s willingness to involve civil society and the media reflects a broader judicial trend toward using public oversight to enforce constitutional mandates in institutional settings.
’s Role
The Bench made it clear that as a , it cannot turn a blind eye to such abuses. “If one person from the State is found to be suffering from a human rights violation, as abusive and gross as this, we will intervene…Things happening there are worse than war crimes…These lives don't matter even to the State,” the judges stated. They further questioned the state’s response to their inspection, asking why people are made to live in such conditions and whether the government lacks the will or resources to act.
The Court has also requested the Advocate General to represent the state in this matter, indicating the seriousness with which it views the non-compliance with its earlier orders. Last month, the Bench had sought the state’s response to a suggestion to rename the ‘Mental Health Centres’ to remove the stigma attached to the words, a step that could be part of a broader reform effort.
Legal Implications and Broader Impact
This case highlights the judiciary’s proactive role in safeguarding the rights of marginalized individuals, particularly those with mental illnesses who are often invisible to society. The proposed , if implemented, could set a precedent for other states grappling with similar issues in mental health institutions. It also reinforces the principle that privacy cannot be used as a shield to violate the under .
For legal professionals, the judgment serves as a reminder of the court’s power to invoke its under to enforce , even in the face of bureaucratic inertia. The emphasis on transparency and accountability may lead to more structured oversight mechanisms, such as independent monitoring committees or regular inspections by civil society groups.
The case also raises important questions about the adequacy of funding and political will in the mental health sector. The Court’s remarks suggest that the state cannot plead financial constraints as an excuse for failing to provide humane conditions. The onus is on the government to demonstrate that it is taking all necessary steps to comply with court orders and constitutional obligations.
Conclusion
The ’s decision to consider a of mental health centres marks a critical juncture in the long-running PIL. By calling for transparency and public oversight, the Court is not only seeking to remedy immediate violations but also to create a system that prevents future abuses. The judges’ strong language and willingness to involve the press and eminent citizens reflect a judicial commitment to ensuring that the most vulnerable members of society are not forgotten. As the matter progresses, all eyes will be on the state government’s response and whether it will finally translate the Court’s words into meaningful action.
