Mental Healthcare Act Can't Be Used As Litigation Weapon: Bombay High Court Rejects Plea To Subject Father To Mental Examination

Passing orders directing Mental Health Review Board (MHRB) under section 105 of the Mental Healthcare Act of 2017 to ascertain a person's mental health based on the proof adduced by his or her opponent, would create a mechanism that may be weaponised by an adversarial party instead of protecting the 'rights' of the person, held the Bombay High Court recently.Notably, section 105 enables the courts to refer a person to a MHRB after his or her mental health is challenged before a court by his or her opponent or adversarial party.Single-judge Justice Farhan Dubash noted that Chapter XIII of the MHA groups sections 100, 101, 102, 103 and 104, under the heading 'Responsibilities of Other Agencies,' that casts duty upon the respective agencies to forthwith refer a person suspected to be suffering from mental illness to a mental health establishment for treatment. "A analogous duty is cast upon a court under Section 105 upon proof of mental illness being adduced before it. What is implicit in a collective reading of these provisions, however, is that their underlying objective is the protection of the rights of persons with mental illness not the creation of a mechanism that may be weaponised by a party to gather proof of mental illness against an adversary with a view to securing a tactical advantage in subsisting litigation," Justice Dubash said in the order passed on February 17. In the instant case before him, the judge noted that a son had challenged the mental health of his father and had even adduced evidence in the form of a medical certificate raising concerns over the father's mental health. However, the judge refused to refer the father to the MHRB after noting that the son had himself filed a suit before High Court with respect to partition of an ancestral property and therefore, had claimed that his father's mental health was improper at this stage and thus, petitioned the High Court seeking to ascertain his mental health under section 105. The judge noted from the Medical Certificate that it merely recorded that father was a diabetic patient who experienced hypoglycaemic episodes following insulin administration, manifesting in transient symptoms such as delusions, confusion, forgetfulness, and perspiration, but these symptoms, the judge noted are usually temporary in nature and resolve upon restoration of normal blood glucose levels."To permit such a course of action would be to arm unscrupulous litigants with the provisions of the MHA, including Section 105, as instruments of harassment rather than protection. Taken to its logical conclusion, such an interpretation would open the floodgates to a situation where every contesting party invokes Section 105 against his counterpart, reducing a welfare-driven statutory provision to a tool of litigation strategy, a consequence that would be wholly antithetical to the legislative intent of the MHA and would have far-reaching and harmful ramifications for the administration of justice," Justice Dubash held. In consonance with the legislative intent as captured in its Preamble, Justice Dubash underlined, that the MHA is a rights-based framework conceived for the protection, diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation of persons with mental illness. "It follows, therefore, that Section 105 is intended to operate as a shield for the protection of such persons and not as a sword to be wielded against them by an adversarial party for collateral purposes," the judge held. As regards the facts of the case, Justice Dubash said that it was 'ex-facie' apparent that the applicant son's invocation of section 105 was not motivated by any desire to protect or safeguard the rights of his father, but was, on the contrary, a calculated attempt to deploy the said provision as an instrument of litigation strategy to secure a decisive advantage over the father in the pending proceedings. "Such an invocation strikes at the very root of the legislative intent underlying the MHA and, in particular, section 105, which is intended to operate as a shield for the protection of persons with mental illness and cannot be permitted to be wielded as a sword against them by an adversarial party. The present IA, being a plain attempt to do precisely that, cannot be countenanced and is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone," the judge said while dismissing the plea. Appearance:Jitendra Gorakh Megh appeared as a Party-in-Person.Advocates Aditya Sharma, Hitesh Gupta , Vipul Makwana and Mohiteshwari Prasad represented the Defendant.Case Title: Jitendra Gorakh Megh vs Gorakh Govind Megh (Interim Application 7713 of 2025)Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 85Click Here To Read/Download Judgment

Mental Healthcare Act Can't Be Used As Litigation Weapon: Bombay High Court Rejects Plea To Subject Father To Mental Examination

Narsi Benwal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Narsi Benwal

Mental Healthcare Act Can't Be Used As Litigation Weapon: Bombay High Court Rejects Plea To Subject Father To Mental Examination

Narsi Benwal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Narsi Benwal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers