Litigation Neurosis: HC Apologises To 71-yr-Old Confined In Mental Institution For Losing Temper In Court, Asks Govt To Pay Rs 2L Compensation [Read Judgment]

In an unfortunate case of “ litigation neurosis ” which led to a 71-year-old litigant and a heart patient spending 20 days in a mental institution only for losing temper in court over the tardy pace of hearing in his case, the Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi government to pay a compensation of Rs 2 lakh to the senior citizen while also apologizing to him and his family for the illegal order passed by a Metropolitan Magistrate which led to his ordeal.A bench of Justice S Muralidhar and Justice IS Mehta apologized to the 71-year old man who was released from IHBAS last year after illegal confinement of 20 days only after his son moved the high court in November last year.The genesis of the problem that Respondent No.4 (senior citizen) faced was the case initiated in year 2008 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal which he was defending as party in person.On a given date in November last year, the respondent could not appear in court in time and when he reached the court, he was informed that the matter has been posted for another date. The respondent lost his temper and created a scene in the court following which the presiding officer ordered that he be taken into custody by the police. From there, he was taken to a hospital for checkup. Later in the night, a duty magistrate ordered that he be sent to IHBAS. All this was without citing any law or the Mental Health Act.To this, the high court said, “The 10-year wait had obviously tested his limits. Litigation fatigue had set in. Every day’s wait for a litigant who has had to spend a decade defending a case is bound to aggravate his litigation neurosis”. “The annoyance caused to the presiding Judge of the MACT was not unexpected. The judicial system is overburdened. Judges too are humans. Most of them are overworked. Their patience gets tested often, particularly by litigants in person who, in the process of navigating the legal maze on their own, disrupt the orderly functioning of the Court. However, being part of an imperfect judicial system, a judge must be prepared for an outburst, every now and then, from a disgruntled user of the system”. “The mere fact that Respondent No.4 may have talked loudly, behaved authoritatively, repeated himself or had ‘grandiose ideas’ did not make him a ‘mentally ill person’ within the meaning of the MHA. Respondent No.4, a heart patient, was subject to tremendous stress on account of his illegal confinement at IHBAS. In short, there was a cascade of violations that had a domino effect on Respondent No.4 denuding him of his rights to life, liberty, dignity and privacy,” said the bench.The court also said “where a person‘s behaviour disrupts the orderly proceedings in a Court, and persuasion fails, the presiding judge can possibly requisition the security apparatus for assistance. At all times, the measures adopted will have to proportionate. The absolute minimum coercion ensuring the dignity of the person sought to be removed, consistent with the limits set by the law, should be deployed. If the Court considers prima facie that the conduct of the person constitutes contempt of the court, then recourse can be had to the procedure set out in the Contempt of Courts Act 1971.“However, to get the police to take such person into custody and take him away for medical examination, without any order to that effect, is not an option available in law. Likewise, for the MM to pass a reception order sending such person to a mental health facility for observation, without referring to any law or source of judicial power is unacceptable. Indiscriminate use of a non-existent judicial power is bound to invite opprobrium and invalidation.The bench has now issued a direction the MACT-2, Rohini Courts, to “positively dispose of the case involving the respondent within a period of six months from today. The Judge MACT-2, Rohini Courts, will give the above case priority and enforce strict timelines for the parties”.Facts of the case:The respondent and his son are defending a Motor Accident Claim petition before the MACT in the Rohini Courts, Delhi. This is a claim filed originally in 2008, arising from road accident that happened in 2007. The accident involved a mini bus owned by the respondent which at the relevant time was being driven by his son. They have been appearing in person in the case for some years now.On 5th July 2017, this case was listed before the MACT. When it was called out in the forenoon, the respondent was not present. The MACT gave the claimant before it a last and final opportunity to conclude his entire evidence on the next date and adjourned the case to 3rd November 2017.Subsequently on the same day, when some other case was going on before the MACT, the respondent appeared at 3.15 pm. The presiding officer later noted in the order that the respondent started creating a scene in the courtroom and used untoward language about the judge’s predecessor. He persisted even when apprised about the case being fixed for ...

Litigation Neurosis: HC Apologises To 71-yr-Old Confined In Mental Institution For Losing Temper In Court, Asks Govt To Pay Rs 2L Compensation [Read Judgment]

akanksha jain

Tags