Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Bombay High Court has expressed concern over 379 patients who have been in a mental health institution for a decade despite being certified as fit for discharge, instructing the review board to prioritise and expedite the review of these cases.

The division bench of the Bombay High Court, consisting of Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Manjusha Deshpande, was hearing a Public Interest Litigation filed by psychiatrist Dr Harish Shetty concerning the conditions of patients at Thane Mental Hospital, some of whom had been there for 12 years.

The bench had previously been informed that 1,022 patients were fit for discharge. In response, the bench had directed special attention to be given to 475 of these patients. Subsequently, it was reported that 379 of the 475 patients were indeed fit for discharge.

The high court called the situation “indeed serious” and emphasised that opinions certifying patients as “fit for discharge” should be presented to the review board.

“As of today, 379 patients have been certified by two psychiatrists as fit for discharge. That would mean that 379 patients in mental health establishments, even after more than ten years, could be discharged yet continue to live in these establishments. This is indeed serious. We are informed that the opinion of these two psychiatrists has to be placed before the Review Board headed by the District Judge, and upon directions issued by the Review Board, further action would be taken,” the court observed.

The Additional Government Pleader informed the bench that the State Government will issue the necessary communication to instruct all the Review Boards to give priority to the cases of such patients.

The Mental Healthcare Act of 2017 mandates the state government to establish review boards in all districts. However, the bench was informed that only eight such boards have been constituted.

The division bench highlighted the lack of a plan for the State Mental Health Authority in addressing the issue of rehabilitation.

“Unfortunately, the actions of the Authority are not commensurate with the gravity of the issue. The Authority should keep in mind that it has lost substantial time to reach its goal because it started functioning with a five-year delay. Be that as it may, since commitment is given to us at least that an outline of the comprehensive plan will be placed before us on the next date, we leave the matter at that for the present,” the bench said.

The bench will now take up the PIL on November 8.

Case title: Dr. Harish Shetty vs State of Maharashtra & Ors