The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a PIL on the implementation of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, has directed the States of Punjab and Haryana and the Chandigarh Administration to ensure that all institutions contemplated under the Act are made functional, after finding that the formation of the State Mental Health Authority, despite being a statutory obligation has largely remained an "empty formality."

Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor said, "We may also indicate that the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, is an important Legislation which is required to be implemented by the concerned authorities of the Central Government as well as State Governments in accordance with the provisions contained in the Act. We reiterate that due sensitivity on the part of the officials of the State would be required for implementing the provisions incorporated in the Parliamentary Legislation. We expect the State authorities to be more careful in ensuring compliance of the Legislation."

The PIL concerns the implementation of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, which came into force on 29.05.2018. Section 45 of the Act mandates every State Government to establish a State Mental Health Authority within nine months of the Act receiving Presidential assent; Section 55 specifies the Authority's composition, manner of filling vacancies, and functions; and Section 64 requires the Authority to prepare an annual report in the form and at the time prescribed by the State Government. The rule-making process is governed by Section 121(2), under which rules require Central Government approval, followed by notification, and must thereafter be placed before the appropriate Legislature.

Pursuant to earlier orders, an affidavit was filed on behalf of the Chief Secretary, State of Punjab, stating that although the rules had been approved by the Central Government, they were yet to be notified, since the rules were still required to be placed before the Legislature. The Court found this position untenable, holding:

"In the affidavit, reliance is placed upon Section 121(2) of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, which clearly manifests that after obtaining of approval from the Central Government, the rule would have to be notified and thereafter the rule so made shall be placed before the appropriate Legislature. It is, therefore, that the affidavit filed by the Chief Secretary is in the teeth of the statutory provisions."

The statute requires notification first, with legislative placement to follow, whereas Punjab's affidavit suggested notification was being withheld pending legislative placement, reversing the statutory sequence. Counsel for the State of Punjab did not dispute this legal position and sought a week's deferment to take necessary steps.

The Court observed that while certain steps had been taken under the Act, its provisions had "not been implemented in letter and spirit," specifically noting that the formation of the State Authority under Section 45 "has remained a matter of empty formality." Emphasising the significance of the legislation.

Noting that State Mental Healthcare Authorities had already been constituted in both Punjab and Haryana, the Court directed the concerned authorities of both States to place on record the annual reports of these Authorities. The Chandigarh Administration was directed to ensure that its Mental Healthcare Authority is constituted within four weeks from the date of the order.

The Court directed the States of Punjab and Haryana, as well as the Chandigarh Administration, to ensure that all necessary institutions contemplated under the Act are made functional, so that the statutory authorities are able to effectively discharge their obligations and ensure availability of effective mental healthcare to citizens.

The matter has been listed for further hearing on 05.10.2026.

Title: PUSHPANJALI TRUST VS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

Click here to read order