Supreme Court Transfers Pleas on Mentally Ill in Faith-Based Asylums to NHRC for Monitoring

New Delhi: In a significant move signaling a shift from judicial intervention to institutional oversight, the Supreme Court of India has transferred three public interest writ petitions concerning the protection and welfare of persons with mental illness in faith-based asylums to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). The decision underscores the Court's satisfaction with the establishment of statutory bodies under the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, and entrusts the NHRC with the crucial long-term task of monitoring compliance and safeguarding human dignity.

A bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice R. Mahadevan directed the transfer of the petitions filed by advocate Gaurav Kumar Bansal, which have been under the Court's purview since 2019. The Court reasoned that with the Central and State mental health authorities now functional, the NHRC is the appropriate body to oversee the complex and ongoing issues of implementation.

“In view of the fact that the Central Mental Health Authority as well as the authorities constituted by the Union Territories have been functioning, we are of the opinion that interest of justice will be subserved if we direct the NHRC to monitor and pass necessary directions after hearing the statutory authorities,” the Court observed in its order, effectively passing the baton of vigilance to the nation's apex human rights watchdog.

---

Background of the Litigation: Unchaining Dignity

The case, Gaurav Kumar Bansal v. Union of India & Ors. , originated from petitions filed in 2018 highlighting the deplorable conditions of individuals with mental illness in certain faith-based institutions. The petitioner-in-person drew the Court's attention to specific asylums, including one in Mohalla Kabulpur, Badaun, Uttar Pradesh, and the Hussain Tekri Shrine in Jaora, Madhya Pradesh, where individuals were reportedly chained, denied proper medical care, and subjected to inhumane practices under the guise of faith healing.

Bansal's pleas were twofold: first, they sought immediate relief for the individuals subjected to such degrading treatment, demanding they be unchained and provided with professional medical care and rehabilitation. Second, they addressed the systemic failure to implement the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, a progressive legislation that recognizes mental healthcare as a statutory right. The petitions specifically called for directions to the Union and State Governments to establish the Central Mental Health Authority (CMHA), State Mental Health Authorities (SMHAs), and Mental Health Review Boards (MHRBs) as mandated by the Act.

The Supreme Court took up the matter with grave concern, making a poignant observation on January 3, 2019: “Even a person suffering from mental disability is still a human being and his dignity cannot be violated.” This statement became the moral and legal touchstone for the proceedings that followed.

Judicial Monitoring and Governmental Response

For over five years, the Supreme Court meticulously monitored the government's progress in operationalizing the 2017 Act. On February 7, 2025, the bench directed the Union of India to submit a detailed affidavit on the status of the CMHA, SMHAs, and MHRBs, including details of appointments and their functionality.

In response, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare filed an affidavit confirming substantial progress:

• Central Mental Health Authority (CMHA): Constituted and notified on December 4, 2018, with new non-official members appointed in November 2022. The authority has held six meetings, the most recent on March 19, 2024.
• State Mental Health Authorities (SMHAs): Established in most States and the Union Territories of Delhi, Puducherry, and Andaman & Nicobar Islands. The process is underway in UTs without legislatures and in Jammu and Kashmir.
• Mental Health Review Boards (MHRBs): Constituted in various States and Union Territories, with efforts ongoing to make them fully operational and fill remaining vacancies.

It was this confirmation of a functional statutory framework that prompted the Court to transition the case from its direct oversight.

The Rationale for Transferring to NHRC

The Supreme Court’s decision to involve the NHRC is a strategic one, rooted in the respective roles of the judiciary and specialized statutory bodies. While the Court's intervention was vital to compel the executive to establish the necessary infrastructure, long-term, on-the-ground monitoring is better suited to an institution like the NHRC. The Commission possesses the mandate and machinery to conduct investigations, issue recommendations, and engage in continuous dialogue with government agencies.

The Court has directed the NHRC to formally register the transferred writ petitions, allocate case numbers, and proceed to pass necessary directions after hearing the newly constituted statutory authorities. This ensures a seamless transition and continuity of purpose, moving the issue from a litigation-centric phase to a rights-enforcement and governance-focused one.

Legal and Social Implications

This judgment holds significant implications for the landscape of mental healthcare and human rights in India.

1. Strengthening the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017: The transfer reaffirms the Act's framework as the primary mechanism for protecting the rights of persons with mental illness. It empowers the very bodies—CMHA, SMHAs, and MHRBs—that the Act created, placing them at the forefront of policy implementation and grievance redressal under NHRC's watch.

2. Addressing the Faith vs. Rights Conundrum: The case directly confronts the sensitive issue of faith-based healing centers that often operate outside the ambit of medical regulation. While respecting religious freedom, the Court’s actions and the transfer to the NHRC send a clear message: faith cannot be a justification for cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. The focus is now on ensuring these centers comply with basic human rights standards and the right to health.

3. A New Model for Judicial Oversight: The Supreme Court’s approach could serve as a model for other long-running PILs involving socio-economic rights. By actively monitoring a case until a statutory framework is operational and then handing over oversight to a specialized body, the Court avoids indefinite supervision, thereby respecting the separation of powers while ensuring accountability.

4. Empowering the NHRC: This directive significantly enhances the NHRC's role in a critical area of human rights. The Commission is now tasked not just with investigating complaints but with systemically monitoring the implementation of a key piece of legislation, coordinating with multiple state and central bodies, and ensuring the dignity of a highly vulnerable population.

The Path Forward

The onus now falls squarely on the National Human Rights Commission to carry the mantle. Its immediate tasks will involve a thorough review of the functioning of the mental health authorities, investigating the conditions in faith-based asylums beyond those named in the original petitions, and issuing binding directions to ensure that the chaining of individuals and the denial of medical care become relics of the past.

For legal practitioners and human rights advocates, this development opens a new avenue for advocacy. Instead of approaching the courts for every instance of non-compliance, stakeholders can now engage directly with the NHRC, which is expected to act as a proactive and continuous monitor. The success of this judicial transition will ultimately depend on the NHRC’s rigor and the responsiveness of the state and central authorities to its directives, marking a pivotal chapter in the ongoing struggle to secure dignity and rights for every citizen, irrespective of their mental health status.