PHHC Urges Swift Action on Mental Healthcare Rules and Group Homes in Punjab, Haryana

In a significant push for the implementation of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 (MHCA), the Punjab & Haryana High Court has directed the Central Government to expeditiously approve the rules framed by the State of Punjab, preferably within six weeks. The bench, comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry, also expected the Punjab government to actively assist in this process. For Haryana, the court noted that central approval had already been granted, with notification pending within four weeks. This ruling comes in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the Chandigarh-based Pushpanjali Trust, primarily seeking the establishment of group homes for persons with mental illnesses in both states. The decision underscores the court's frustration over delays in operationalizing a key welfare legislation, now nearly eight years old, and highlights the ongoing challenges in mental health infrastructure in the region.

Case Background

The PIL, titled Pushpanjali Trust v. State of Punjab and Others (CWP-PIL-110-2024), was instituted to address the glaring gaps in the enforcement of the MHCA, 2017, in Punjab and Haryana. Enacted to align with India's international commitments under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the MHCA aims to provide comprehensive care, protection, and rehabilitation for individuals with mental illnesses. It mandates states to frame rules for its implementation, including provisions for community-based care like group homes, which offer residential support outside institutional settings.

The petitioner, represented by its Managing Trustee Aditya Rametra, highlighted the absence of such facilities, arguing that this violates the Act's core objectives. The litigation traces back to concerns over non-compliance despite the Act's promulgation in 2017. Previous hearings revealed that neither state had notified the requisite rules even after seven to eight years, a delay the court deemed unacceptable for welfare legislation. The main prayer focuses on establishing group homes—one model each in Punjab and Haryana—to promote deinstitutionalization and community integration for mentally ill persons.

The case also involves multiple respondents, including the Union of India, the states of Punjab and Haryana, and institutions like the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGI) in Chandigarh. The timeline shows incremental progress: Punjab forwarded its draft rules to the Centre on January 29, 2026, after addressing objections, while Haryana's rules received central approval on January 8, 2026. However, the states have remained silent on the petitioner's demand for model group homes, prompting the court's repeated queries. The matter, heard via a bench including Senior Standing Counsel for the Union and state advocates, is now scheduled for March 24, 2026.

This PIL exemplifies how judicial intervention is often sought to enforce socio-economic rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution, which encompass the right to health and dignity. The trust's involvement adds a layer of advocacy from civil society, emphasizing the human cost of bureaucratic inertia in mental health policy.

Arguments Presented

The petitioner's case, advanced by the Pushpanjali Trust, centered on the humanitarian and legal imperatives of the MHCA. They contended that the Act's non-implementation has left thousands of mentally ill individuals without access to community-based care, leading to institutionalization, stigma, and rights violations. Specifically, group homes under Section 18 of the MHCA are envisioned as safe, supportive environments fostering independence, yet none exist in Punjab or Haryana. The trust argued that states' failure to frame and notify rules contravenes the Act's timeline and the central guidelines issued in 2018. They invoked the welfare nature of the legislation, urging the court to direct immediate action to prevent further detriment to vulnerable populations. Factual submissions included statistics on rising mental health cases post-pandemic and the lack of de-addiction centers or advance directive mechanisms in the region.

On the respondents' side, the Union of India, represented by Senior Advocate Dheeraj Jain and Central Government Counsel Shreyansi Verma, updated the court on the procedural status. They confirmed receipt of Punjab's rules on January 29, 2026, and outlined the verification process, which involves legal scrutiny for alignment with the parent Act. For Haryana, they reported approval on January 8, 2026, shifting responsibility to the state for gazette notification. The Centre emphasized its role as an approver rather than a framer, noting that states bear primary implementation duties under the federal structure.

The State of Punjab, through Senior Deputy Advocate General Salil Sabhlok, acknowledged the forwarding of rules but cited administrative hurdles in addressing prior objections. They committed to assisting the Centre but offered no timeline for group homes, a point the court criticized. Haryana's Additional Advocate General Deepak Balyan assured notification within four weeks, highlighting partial compliance. However, both states evaded direct responses on model group homes, prompting the court to direct further instructions. The respondents collectively argued that progress was underway, but the petitioner countered that piecemeal efforts fell short of the Act's holistic requirements, including the Mental Health Review Boards and emergency provisions.

These arguments framed the dispute as a tension between procedural federalism and urgent welfare needs, with the petitioner pushing for enforceable directives to bridge implementation gaps.

Legal Analysis

The court's reasoning rooted in the MHCA's status as welfare legislation, obligating states to operationalize its provisions without undue delay. The bench referenced the Act's Preamble and Sections 122-124, which require states to frame rules within a prescribed period to cover advance directives, nominated representatives, and community care. The delay of 7-8 years was labeled "unfortunate," invoking principles from precedents like Common Cause v. Union of India (2018), where the Supreme Court emphasized timely enforcement of rights to life and dignity under Article 21, including mental health.

No specific precedents were directly cited in the order, but the analysis draws implicitly from PIL jurisprudence, such as Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), which used judicial directives to fill legislative voids in public welfare. The court distinguished between central approval (a federal oversight under Section 122) and state notification (a local executive function), clarifying that Haryana's bottleneck was administrative, while Punjab's required central intervention. This delineation underscores cooperative federalism under Article 256, where the Centre can direct states on concurrent subjects like health.

The ruling applied the doctrine of continuing mandamus, a tool in PILs to monitor compliance, by setting deadlines and requiring responses from entities like PGI-Chandigarh. It highlighted distinctions between institutional care (prevalent but stigmatizing) and community-based models like group homes, aligned with Section 4 of the MHCA promoting least restrictive environments. The court's concern over unanswered queries on model homes reflects a broader principle: welfare statutes demand proactive state action, not mere compliance. By directing service on PGI and instructions for Haryana's respondent No. 9, the bench ensured holistic involvement, potentially invoking Section 14 of the Act for central institutions' roles in mental health services.

This analysis not only expedites rules but signals judicial intolerance for delays in rights-based laws, potentially influencing similar cases in other states.

Key Observations

The Punjab & Haryana High Court made several pointed observations in its order, emphasizing the urgency of implementation:

• "It is unfortunate to note that even after expiry of 7-8 years since promulgating of the Act of 2017, Rules have not yet been notified even by both the States of Punjab and Haryana. Considering the fact that the Act of 2017 is a welfare legislation, both the States are obliged to frame the Rules to give effect to various provisions of the Act."

• "The Rules framed by the State of Punjab have recently been forwarded to the Central Government on 29.01.2026 after removing objections. The next step is for the Central Government to verify, examine and approve the same with or without amendment. The Central Government is, therefore, directed to ensure that the Rules are approved as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six weeks."

• "As regards, the Rules pertaining to the State of Haryana are concerned, the same were approved by the Central Government on 08.01.2026. The next step in the process of Rules coming into effect is that the same have to be notified and published in the official gazette which will be done by the State of Haryana within four weeks as assured by learned counsel representing State of Haryana."

• "The question raised by this Court as regards the setting up of a Model Group Home, one each in Punjab and Haryana, has not been responded to by State of Punjab or Haryana."

• "It is expected from State of Punjab to expedite and assist the Central Government in the process of approval of the Rules."

These excerpts, drawn directly from the judgment dated February 4, 2026, underscore the court's proactive stance and frustration with state inaction.

Court's Decision

In its order dated February 4, 2026, the Punjab & Haryana High Court issued clear directives to advance the MHCA's implementation. The Central Government must verify and approve Punjab's rules within six weeks, with the state obligated to assist. For Haryana, notification in the Official Gazette is to occur within four weeks, as assured. The court also mandated serving the petition on Senior Standing Counsel Amit Jhanji for an early response from PGI-Chandigarh and directed Haryana's counsel to seek instructions from respondent No. 9. The matter is listed for March 24, 2026, for further monitoring.

These orders have immediate practical effects: they could operationalize rules enabling nominations, emergency care, and group homes, directly benefiting mentally ill persons by reducing reliance on outdated asylums. For legal professionals, this reinforces the judiciary's role in enforcing timelines under welfare laws, potentially setting a precedent for continued oversight in non-compliant states. Future cases may cite this for mandating model facilities, impacting policy in mental health—a field strained by underfunding and stigma.

Broader implications include strengthened community care, aligning with global standards and Article 21's expanse to mental well-being. However, sustained compliance depends on post-notification actions, such as funding for group homes. This decision could catalyze similar PILs nationwide, pressuring governments to prioritize mental health amid rising demands, ultimately fostering a more inclusive legal framework for vulnerable groups.