The Kerala High Court recently issued a directive to the State Police Chief, instructing them to ensure that all police officers receive training and awareness on the provisions of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017.
This directive aims to enhance the understanding of police officers regarding the concerns and issues faced by individuals with mental illnesses. The suggestion to implement this directive was put forward by Advocate V Ramkumar Nambiar, who acted as the Amicus Curiae in the case.
The court order stated that “The State Police Chief will ensure that the Police Officers in all the Police Stations in the State are sensitized to the relevant provisions of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 so as to ensure proper, prompt and effective compliance with the provisions, which would pave the way for ameliorating the grievances of the mentally ill persons.”
The case that prompted this directive involved an application filed on behalf of a man who suffered from bipolar disorder and depression, and who exhibited suicidal tendencies.
The petitioner, citing his mental condition, argued that he was unfit to stand trial or defend himself in a criminal case filed against him due to his unsound mind. The charges brought against him included Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 9 and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
Initially, the petitioner’s wife had filed an application under Section 328 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in the special court, which deals with the procedure to be followed when the accused in a criminal case is of unsound mind. However, the application was rejected by the special judge, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court.
The counsel representing the petitioner argued that the trial court had failed to review the pertinent evidence that would establish the petitioner’s mental illness and his incapacity to mount a defense.
It was also argued that the trial court lacked expertise in determining the mental condition of the petitioner, and reference was made to Section 105 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that the matter should have been referred to an expert board in accordance with this provision.
The Amicus Curiae supported this argument, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the referral to an expert board as stated in Section 105 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017. Since the trial court had failed to undertake this step, it was urged that the High Court should intervene in the matter.
After reviewing the petitioner’s medical records and relevant legal precedents, the High Court ultimately agreed with the submissions made by the Amicus Curiae and granted the petition.
The Court has issued an order directing the trial court to reexamine the case and adhere to the prescribed procedure outlined in the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and Section 105 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017.
