Mr.
Altaf Ahmed, ASG
Krishan Mahajan,Adv.
Ms. Sunita Sharma, Adv. for
Ms.Sushma Suri,Adv.
for
Rajasthan State
:
Mr.Ranji
Thomas,Adv.for
Mr.Javed Mahmood Rao,Adv.
for
Karnataka State
:
Mr.Sanjay
R. Hegde,Adv.
for
Pondicherry State
:
Mr.
V.G. Pragasam,Adv.
for
Nagaland State
:
Mr.Sanjay
K.Shandilya,Adv. for
Mrs.V.D.Khanna,Adv.
...2/-
for
Sikkim State
:
Mr.A.Mariarputham,Adv.,
for
Ms. Aruna Mathur, Adv.
for
Chhatisgarh State
:
Mr.Prakash
Shrivastava,Adv.
for
Arunachal Pradesh
:
Mr.Anil
Shrivastav,Adv.
for
A.P State
:
Mr.T.V.
Ratnam,Adv.,
Mr.K.Subba Rao,Adv.
for
Manipur State
:
Mr.KH
Nobin Singh,Adv.
for
Uttranchal State
:
Ms.Rachna
Srivastava,Adv.,
Mr. Mahesh C Kaushiwa, Adv.
for
J & K
:
Mr.
Anis Suhrawardy, Adv.
for
Goa State
:
Ms.A.Subhashini,Adv.,
Mr. Bhawanishankar V Gadnis, Adv.
for
U.P.State
:
Mr.
Ajay K. Agrawal,Adv.
for
Tripura State
:
Mr.
Gopal Singh,Adv.
for
Assam State
:
Ms.
Krishna Sarma, Adv.
Mr. VK Siddharthan, Adv.
Corporate Law Group.
for
West Bengal State
:
Mr.Tara
Chandra Sharma,Adv.
for
Kerala State
:
Mr.K.R.Sasiprabhu,Adv.
for
Meghalaya State
:
Mr.Ranjan
Mukherjee,Adv.
for
Rajasthan State
:
Mr.Ranji
Thomas,Adv.for
Mr.Javed Mahmud Rao,Adv.
for
Gujarat State
and Mizoram
:
Ms.Hemantika
Wahi, Adv.,
for
Punjab State
:
Mr.
Rajeev Sharma,Adv.
for
UT of Chandigarh
:
Ms.Kamini
Jaiswal,Adv.
for
Haryana State
:
Mr.J.P.
Dhanda,Adv.
for
State of M.P.
:
Mr.
B.S. Banthia,Adv.
for
Maharashtra State
:
Mr.S.V.
Deshpande,Adv.
for
Jharkhand
:
Mr.
Ashok Mathur, Adv.
Mr. Gopal Prasad, Adv.
Mr. SK Singh, Adv.
for
State of Orissa
:
Mr.
JR Das, Adv.
Mr. Radha Shyam Jena, Adv.
for
Karnataka State
:
Mr.
Sanjay R Hegde, Adv.
...3/-
for
Himachal Pradesh
:
Mr.
Naresh K Sharma, Adv.
UPON
hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Certain
directions are issued to the State Governments, Union
Territories, Chief Secretaries/Administrator/Commissioners and
Health Secretary, Union of India in terms of
the signed order.
It
is also ordered that if any suggestions are to be made by
any interested parties, the same may be submitted through Mr. Pranab
Kumar Mullick, Advocate (Amicus Curiae).
List on 23-7-2002.
(D.L.
Chugh) Court Master
.
(K.K.
Chadha) Court Master
Signed
order is placed on the file
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.334 OF 2001
"IN
RE: DEATH OF 25 CHAINED INMATES IN ASYLUM FIRE IN TAMIL NADU"
WITH
WRIT
PETITION (CIVIL) NO.562 OF 2001
SAARTHAK
REGISTERED SOCIETY & ANR. ....Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION
OF INDIA & ORS. ....Respondent(s)
------
O R D E R ------
We have heard
learned Additional Solicitor General Mr. Altaf Ahmed and counsel
for the parties.
In
continuation of our order dated 5th February, 2002 and considering
various provisions of the Mental Health Act, 1987, particularly
Section 5 which inter alia provides that Central
Government may in any part of India or State
Government may within the limits of its
jurisdiction establish or maintain psychiatric
hospital or psychiatric nursing homes
for the admission, treatment and care of mentally
ill persons at such places as it thinks fit, it is directed
as under:
1.
Every State and Union Territory (UT) shall undertake
a comprehensive Need Assessment survey and file the Report
thereof on the following aspects:
-
2 -
(a)
Estimated availability of Mental
Health Resource personnel in the State, including
psychiatrists, psychologists, psychiatric social
workers and psychiatric nurses in both the public and
private (licensed) sector;
(b)
Type of Mental Health Delivery System available in
the State, including the available bed strength, outpatient services
and rehabilitation services in the public and private (licensed)
sector;
(c)
An estimate of the Mental Health Services
(including Personnel and facilities) that would be required having
regard to the population of the State and the incidence of mental
illness.
2.
The Chief Secretary of each State and Administrator/Commissioner
of every UT shall file an Affidavit Stating clearly:
i)
Whether any minimum standards have been prescribed for Licensing
of Mental Health Institutions in the State/UT and in case
such minimum standards have been prescribed, full details
thereof;
ii) Whether each of the existing registered Mental
Health Institutions in the State/UT, whether private
or run by the State, meet such
minimum prescribed standards as on date of
-
3 -
passing
this order and if not, what steps have been taken
to ensure compliance of licensing conditions and/or
withdrawal of the license.
iii)
How many unregistered bodies, by whatsoever name called, purporting
to offer psychiatric/mental health care exist in the State
on date of this order and whether any of them comply with Minimum
standards and are entitled to grant of licence and
if not, whether steps have been taken to close down the same;
iv)
Whether any mentally challenged person has been found to be chained
in any part of the State/UT;
v)
Conclusions on the basis of the Need Assessment
Survey undertaken in terms of direction (1) above.
It
is made clear that each affidavit must specifically
and comprehensively deal with each of the queries set out above.
3.
The Report of Need Assessment Survey and Affidavit as set out
in Directions (1) and (2) above shall be submitted to
the Health Secretary, Union of India so as to reach him latest by
Ist July, 2002. The Health Secretary,
Union of India shall thereafter compile
and collate the information as above and
present the same in the form of a self-explanatory Note/chart
to this Court along with his conclusions. The Affidavits
filed by
-
4 -
the
States/UTs shall be annexed to the Note/chart. The
Health Secretary, Union of India shall file the said Note/chart
in this Court by 15th July, 2002.
It is further directed that the Chief Secretaries of all States
and Commissioners of all UTs who fail
to file such Affidavit with the Health Secretary,
Union of India by Ist July, 2002 shall have to personally
remain present on the next date of hearing and explain the default.
4.
Further Union of India is directed -
a)
To frame a Policy and initiate steps for establishment of at
least one Central Government run Mental Health Hospital
in each State (As provided under Section 5 of the Act);
b)
To examine the feasibility of formulating uniform rules
regarding standard of services for both
public and private sector Mental Health Institutes;
c)
To constitute a committee to give recommendations on the issue
of care of mentally challenged persons
who have no immediate relatives or who have been abandoned
by relatives;
d)
To frame norms for Non-Government Organisations working
in the field of Mental Health and to ensure that
the services
-
5 -
rendered by
them are supervised by qualified/ trained persons.
5.
All State Governments are also directed to frame Policy
and initiate steps for establishment of
at least one State Government run
Mental Health Hospital in each State. It
is clarified that a Mental Health Hospital as stated above
means a full-fledged Hospital catering only
to mentally challenged persons and does
not include a separate psychiatric ward in a Medical
college or Government Hospital.
6.
LEGAL AID
Under Section 43 of the Mental Health
Act (MHA), a patient is required to apply
to the Magistrate in order to be discharged.
The procedure prescribed under the Section,
on occasions causes difficulties to the patients inasmuch
as many patients may not be in
a position to make the requisite applications
before a Magistrate, nor would they be aware
of their rights, and the procedure to seek discharge.
Hence
it is directed that two members of the Legal Aid Board
of each State be appointed to make monthly visit to
such Institutions, so as to assist the patients and their relatives
in applying for discharge from the Institutions if they have
fully recovered, and do not require institutional assistance any
longer or to find out whether as a matter of fact they require
any such treatment as indoor patients.
-
6 -
7.
RIGHTS
1. INFORMING PATIENTS OF THEIR RIGHTS
Patients and their guardians shall be explained
their rights by a team of 2 members of the Legal Aid
and a Judicial Officer, under the
Mental Health Act, in a language known to them, at the
time of the admission to any Institute. They should
also be informed whom to approach in case their rights are
being infringed.
2.
INSPECTION BY THE BOARD OF VISITORS
Section 37 provides for inspection of psychiatric hospital and psychiatirc nursing
home. In view of the said Section a Board
of Visitors must be formed by the State Mental Health Authority
in every State within a time bound period, and a compliance
report be filed to this Court. The Board of Visitors shall
be required to visit every State or Private Institution for the
time being at least once every month. The membership of the
Board of Visitors is contained in Section 37 of the Mental Health Act,
1987, which includes:-
a) Note
less than 5 members
b) At least one Psychiatrist
c) Two Social Workers preferably with knowledge of
the issues in the hospital and may be from the NGO Sector.
-
7 -
d)
Head of Medical Services or their nominees (preferably a Psychiatrist)
as ex-officio member of Board of Visitors
in the State;
The
Board of Visitors should also include:-
1. The Additional District Judge, and/or
Chief Judicial Magistrate, and/or the President
of the Bar Association of the Area;
2.
State Disability Commissioner or his/her nominee.
A monthly record of visits of the Board of Visitors and a quarterly
report should be filed with the State Mental Health
Authority.
Further
it has been suggested by the learned counsel for the parties
that appropriate norms be prescribed for maintenance of
Mental Hospitals and institutions
for which various suggestions are made by
the learned counsel for the parties but are not
discussed at present as it is
for the concerned authorities to first frame such norms.
8.
A Scheme may be envisaged for re-habilitation process for those
who are not having any backing or lack of support in
the community. The Scheme may be on the basis of Quarter-way
homes
-
8 -
(Supported
Shared Home Like Accommodation) for all patients ready to
be discharged, but are not being discharged due to family not taking
them back, or lack of support in the community, should be placed
in a home like accommodation created on
the hospital campus itself. This accommodation could
be an existing ward converted to
have a home like environment, with patients being taught housekeeping
skills, cooking, shopping and also encouraged to take up responsibilities
in the hospital for which they should be paid for and then
gradually encouraged to go to the community for work.
Learned
Amicus Curiae Dr. Singhvi rightly submitted that if any suggestions
are made by any interested parties, the same may be
submitted through the Mr. Pranab Kumar Mullick, Advocate (Amicus
Curiae) and we order accordingly.