MP High Court: Private De-Addiction Centre Cannot Detain An Adult On Wife’s Consent Form Alone

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore has held that a private de-addiction centre cannot function as a detention facility merely because a spouse has signed a consent form, declaring the confinement of a man at a rehabilitation centre illegal and ordering his immediate release.

A Division Bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar and Justice Jai Kumar Pillai allowed a habeas corpus petition filed by Rajesh Patidar, who sought the release of his younger brother from a private rehabilitation facility. The order, authored by Justice Pillai, was passed on October 7, 2026.

According to the order, the corpus and his wife were legally married but living separately in Indore district amid severe matrimonial disputes. The brother had earlier lodged multiple police complaints, including NCR No. 32/2025 and NCR No. 165/2025, alleging assault and harassment by his wife and her family.

On September 7, 2026, the wife allegedly called him to her residence and then took him to the centre, where he has been kept ever since. The petitioner visited the centre the next day seeking his brother’s release but was refused. A complaint to the local police led to no effective action. The corpus suffers from left-side paralysis.

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Monesh Jindal argued that corpus was neither a habitual drug addict nor a person requiring forced treatment, and that the wife had colluded with the centre to usurp his property. He added that a facility lacking proper medical infrastructure posed a severe threat to a paralysed patient needing regular neurological care.

Opposing the plea, the respondents contended that corpus was a habitual drug addict who frequently harmed his wife while intoxicated, and that she had admitted him merely to save her own life and her marriage. Shubham Mandil appeared for the wife, while Government Advocate Amit Bhatia represented the State respondents.

The bench relied heavily on a Medical Board constituted by its order of September 28, 2026. The board’s report of October 1, 2026 recorded “no gross psychopathology on Mental State Examination”, though corpus had left side residual hemiparesis, for which a neurologist’s opinion was advised.

The court said this opinion “completely dismantles the narrative heavily relied upon by Respondent No.5”. It added: “There is absolutely nothing on record demonstrating that the Corpus suffers from any psychopathology or addiction warranting his forced institutionalization.”

The bench also found merit in the argument on informed consent. “It is a settled legal proposition that an adult citizen of sound mind possesses absolute autonomy over his person and medical treatment,” the court observed, adding that “a private rehabilitation center has no statutory authority to act as a detention facility merely based on a spouse’s consent form.”

Admission of an adult to a de-addiction centre, it explained, must either stem from his own voluntary free will or be backed by a competent legal or medical mandate, “both of which are glaringly absent in the present case.”

Rejecting the claim that corpus enjoyed free will at the centre, the bench called the argument “factually contradictory”. It noted that the petitioner had personally approached the centre’s authorised representative on September 8, 2026, seeking his brother’s release. “If the Corpus truly enjoyed free will and was a voluntary patient, the center would have possessed no authority to deny his exit,” the court remarked.

Holding that the confinement violated Article 21, the court said the respondents had “completely failed to demonstrate any statutory or medical justification for retaining his custody against his wishes.”

Accordingly, the petition was allowed and the detention declared illegal. The police authorities and the private centre were directed to release the corpus forthwith. He was permitted to reside at a place of his own choice or with his brother, as per his own free will.

The court left a narrow window open for the wife. She may apply for a Nasha Mukti Kendra, but only if backed by future independent Medical Board opinions indicating emergent necessity.

Case Title: Rajesh Patidar vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others 

Date of Order: October 7, 2026

Bench: Justice Subodh Abhyankar and Justice Jai Kumar Pillai