Here’s what the Delhi HC said about applicability of FRs to non-state actors

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday passed an extensive judgment uniting a young girl with her gurus. While doing so, it dealt with several questions pertaining to the fundamental rights to life, liberty, dignity and privacy, and interpreted various provisions of the Mental Health Act..The judgment was delivered in a writ of habeas corpus filed by the music teachers of a 23-year-old woman who was forcibly taken away from their residence, at the behest of the woman’s parents with the help of the police. She was then taken to a privately run mental hospital and was kept there without her consent for roughly two days..The woman had been learning classical music from the petitioners since she was 11 years old. She moved in with them once she turned 18, as she was unable to get along with her parents. Since then, the petitioners had been taking care of her..The Bench of Justices S Muralidhar and C Hari Shankar concluded that the forcible taking away of the woman and her consequent detention at the mental hospital was illegal, unconstitutional, and violative of her fundamental rights to life, liberty, dignity and privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution and Section 19 of the MHA..“The Constitution of India implicitly recognizes the right to full personhood.”.While coming to the above conclusion, the Bench referred to several landmark judgments, including the Supreme Court’s decision in Justice KS Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India regarding the right to privacy..The Bench noted that among the nine primary types of privacy, one concerned ‘decisional privacy’, reflected by an ability to make decisions in respect of intimate relations..With regard to the jurisdiction of the Court in providing relief against actions by non-state actors, the Bench noted that violation of one’s rights could be by state or non-state actors, and that the obligation to respect one’s rights is placed both on state and non-state actors. It was observed that,.“In other words Articles 15 (2), 17, 19, 21 and 23 acknowledge the horizontal nature of those fundamental rights. They can be enforced against not just the State but non-state actors as well.”.The Bench highlighted the conduct of the parents and observed that they had repeatedly attempted to have their daughter declared mentally ill, simply because they did not agree with the choice she made (regarding pursuing music), all the while proclaiming that they were acting for her welfare..The Bench also held that a person cannot be admitted to a mental health institution in order to determine whether she requires such admission. The determination that should be made prior to her admission and not later. It was further held,.“The procedure for involuntary admission under Section 19 MHA is only applicable when the person has been found to be mentally ill as required by law and a satisfaction has been reached to that end. Admitting a person under Section 19 MHA merely for observation cannot be countenanced as doing so would be in violation of a person‘s rights to life, liberty, and dignity granted under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”.The Court passed a slew of directions against the police officials and the doctors who had helped the parents ‘pick up’ the girl and keep her at the mental institution. These include an inquiry into the role of two police officers, and a direction to the Medical Council of India to look into the breach of medical ethics by the doctor who gave his assent for the girl’s admission, as well as the hospital and the ambulance company..The Court also directed the Medical Council to formulate a separate code of ethics for psychiatrists to follow, which will reinforce the law..It was further directed,.“The Delhi Police shall prepare a manual detailing how to deal with cases under the MHA and, after 8th July 2018, the Mental Healthcare Act 2017. It must prepare a protocol in consultation with legal experts as well as experts in mental healthcare and spread awareness on the issue of mental health.”.In light of the circumstances, the Court ordered that the girl be paid compensation of Rs. 3 lakh by Cosmos Institute of Mental Health & Behavioral Sciences (where she was kept), Rs. 1 lakh each by Almas (Ambulance Service used to pick her up) and the State and Rs. 3 lakh by her parents..The petitioners were represented by advocate Trideep Pais, along with Shivam Sharma, Seema Mishra and Deeksha Gujral. Rajshekhar Rao appeared as Amicus Curiae in the matter, while Rahul Mehra appeared for the NCT Delhi government..Read Judgment: