Mental Healthcare Act implementation: HC seeks affidavits from Punjab, Haryana chief secys
Source Entity
Latest News: Todays Latest News Headlines from India & World | Hindustan Times | Hindustan Times
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued a stern directive to state officials to submit affidavits regarding the implementation of the Mental Healthcare Act-2017. The court expressed dissatisfaction over the failure to constitute essential bodies like the State Mental Health Authority and Review Boards.
Judicial Intervention in Mental Healthcare Governance
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has taken a critical step toward ensuring the enforcement of the Mental Healthcare Act-2017 by demanding personal affidavits from the chief secretaries of Punjab and Haryana. This judicial intervention highlights a significant gap between legislative intent and administrative execution, as the court expressed frustration over the persistent failure of these states to establish the necessary infrastructure required to protect the rights of persons with mental disabilities.
The Administrative Vacuum
At the heart of the court's concern is the absence of vital institutional frameworks. The Mental Healthcare Act-2017 mandates the creation of the State Mental Health Authority and Mental Health Review Boards, which are essential for oversight, grievance redressal, and the protection of patient rights. The bench, led by acting chief justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra, noted that while Haryana has reportedly framed rules, the substantive implementation—specifically the constitution of these boards—remains unfulfilled. This administrative inertia leaves vulnerable populations without the legal recourse the Act was designed to provide.
Accountability for Chandigarh
Beyond the states of Punjab and Haryana, the court has also expanded its scrutiny to the Union Territory of Chandigarh. By directing the chief secretary of Chandigarh to clarify the status of these requisite authorities, the court is ensuring a comprehensive regional compliance review. This move reflects a broader judicial effort to eliminate bureaucratic delays that impede the delivery of healthcare services and the safeguarding of fundamental human rights for individuals living with mental health conditions.
Historical Context and Legal Obligations
This recent directive follows a series of repeated orders issued by the High Court, indicating a pattern of non-compliance by the concerned state governments. The Mental Healthcare Act-2017 was enacted to provide a robust legal framework that shifts the focus from institutionalization to community-based care and human rights protection. When states fail to constitute the mandated authorities, they effectively nullify the legislative protections meant to prevent the abuse of patients and ensure access to quality mental health services.
Future Implications and Conclusion
The requirement for personal affidavits from the chief secretaries marks a significant escalation in the court's oversight process. By holding top-level administrative officials directly accountable, the judiciary is attempting to fast-track the operationalization of the Act. Moving forward, the court's insistence on these affidavits will likely serve as a litmus test for the states' commitment to mental health reform. Failure to comply in the upcoming proceedings may lead to further legal repercussions, emphasizing that the implementation of the Mental Healthcare Act is not merely a policy preference but a mandatory constitutional obligation.
Verification Required?