"Regrettable state of affairs": Bombay High Court on failure by Maharashtra to implement Mental Healthcare Act

The Bombay High Court on Saturday admonished the Maharashtra government for the regrettable state of affairs when it comes to implementing the provisions of the Mental Healthcare Act [Dr. Harish Shetty v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.]..A bench of Justices Nitin Jamdar and Gauri Godse noted the gravity of duties imposed on the State Mental Health Authority (authority), and deemed it necessary to issue directions to them to inculcate a sense of urgency for the tasks ahead. The Bench highlighted in the order that the authority itself had not been functioning till the State was directed in August this year to make it functional. “In this regrettable state of affairs, it has become necessary for us to issue directions to the authority and the State, highlighting the gravity of the duties imposed upon them under the Act and to inculcate a sense of urgency for the tasks ahead,” the order said..The directions came in a public interest litigation which highlighted the serious issues of non-implementation of the Mental Healthcare Act in the State of Maharashtra..The Court was informed that under Section 56 of the Act, the State Mental Health Authority was mandated to meet no less than 4 times a year. However, till August 2022 the authority was not functional, it was highlighted. It was only after the Court's directions that the authority was formed and it held its first meeting in September. The Court expected the authority to deal with wider issues emerging from enforcing the Act of 2017, considering it was a first meeting; however, the minutes of the meeting submitted to the Court did not contain such issues. The Bench also noted that the minutes failed to show what tasks the Chief Executive Officer (CEO)of the authority had undertaken in order to conduct the work programmes and prepare annual accounts of revenue and expenditure.“Since this was the only meeting to be held this year after a long time, the manner in which the meeting was conducted, to use the mildest expression, is superficial,” the Court stated.The Bench also noted that the minutes referred to a decision to open a bank account in the name of the authority, as was stipulated under the Act. The account was to receive funds from the State government for its functioning and for conducting various programmes. The Court, however, did not find any explanation how the authority worked without a bank account or statutory fund required for its functioning..In view of these, the Bench called for several reports from the CEO of the authority, asking him to place on record the work programme that is intended to be carried out and a statement of its bank account, which would include the budget sanctioned, etc. The Secretary of the Public Health Department of Maharashtra was also directed to place on record the details of task so performed by the appropriate government as per the Act. Though Additional Government Pleader Manish Pabale sought some time to place the affidavit on record, the Court did not concede to such request. “We would have ordinarily considered this request, however, considering what is directed are statutory requirements, we are not inclined to grant a longer time. If the Statutory Reports are already prepared and submitted, they have to be only annexed. We observe that if the statutory reports are not prepared at all so far, they be placed on record in the provisional form. The information, however, shall be placed on record by the date assigned,” the Bench ordered..The Court also expressed hope that the Secretary and others would respond with seriousness and not bring about a situation to secure their presence in the Court.The Bench posted the matter for further hearing on December 21. [Read Order]