The Supreme Court of India has transferred to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) three petitions concerning the rights, protection, and welfare of persons with mental illness who are being kept in faith-based asylums across the country. The move is significant in the context of ensuring implementation of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, and strengthening the oversight mechanism to safeguard the dignity and human rights of mentally ill individuals.
The decision was made by a bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice R. Mahadevan, who noted that the Central Mental Health Authority and State/Union Territory Mental Health Authorities were now functioning. Accordingly, oversight and further directions could be more effectively handled by the NHRC as a human rights monitoring body.
Background of the Case
The petitions were filed by advocate Gaurav Kumar Bansal, who approached the Court in person, raising concerns over the inhumane conditions in which individuals with mental illnesses were being kept in faith-based healing centers. These included:
- A faith-based asylum in Mohalla Kabulpur, Badaun (Uttar Pradesh)
- The Hussain Tekri Shrine in Jaora, Ratlam (Madhya Pradesh)
The petitions highlighted instances of individuals being:
- Chained or restrained
- Denied standard psychiatric treatment
- Deprived of basic human dignity
- Subjected to superstitious or ritualistic practices
Bansal also sought directions to ensure that the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, is implemented in its full spirit, particularly with regard to:
- Establishing Central and State Mental Health Authorities (CMHA/SMHA)
- Functioning of Mental Health Review Boards (MHRBs)
- Framing rules and procedures under Sections 121 & 123 of the Act
- Ensuring treatment, rehabilitation, and reintegration of affected individuals
Supreme Court’s Observations and Key Direction
The Supreme Court had been monitoring the issue since 2019, with notable observations made on January 3, 2019, where it emphasized:
“Even a person suffering from mental disability is still a human being, and his dignity cannot be violated.”
On February 7, 2025, the Court directed the Union Government to file a comprehensive affidavit detailing:
| Requirement | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Establishment of CMHA & SMHAs | To oversee compliance with mental healthcare laws |
| Setting up MHRBs | To ensure patient rights and review clinical decisions |
| Status of appointments & infrastructure | To ensure operational functionality |
Following compliance submissions from the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, the Court took note of the progress:
- CMHA was notified in December 2018
- Non-official members were added in November 2022
- Six meetings of the CMHA have taken place, the latest on March 19, 2024
- SMHAs have been set up in most States and UTs
- Mental Health Review Boards are under varying stages of operationalization
- Remaining vacancies are actively being filled
Given this progress, the Court held that NHRC is now best suited to continue monitoring and ensure actionable compliance.
Final Direction
The Supreme Court ordered:
- Transfer of writ petitions to NHRC
- NHRC shall assign case numbers, hear statutory authorities, and issue necessary directions
- Monitoring must be conducted in accordance with law to protect human dignity
Why This Matters: Mental Healthcare and Human Rights
Mental illness continues to be heavily stigmatized in India, often pushing families to seek religious or faith-based healing. While faith and belief are fundamental rights, they cannot replace medical care or justify cruel, degrading, or inhuman treatment.
Key Human Rights Concerns In Highlighted Asylums
| Issue Identified | Human Rights Violation Risk |
|---|---|
| Chaining and physical restraint | Violation of dignity & freedom of movement |
| Lack of psychiatric care | Denial of right to health |
| Ritual-driven treatment | Medical neglect |
| Social isolation | Marginalization and exclusion |
| Absence of oversight | Risk of abuse and exploitation |
The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 recognizes mental healthcare as a legal right and mandates least-restrictive treatment environments. The Act aims to empower individuals, ensure community-based care, and promote informed decision-making.
The Court’s decision reinforces this statutory vision.
Role of NHRC Going Forward
As a constitutional human rights watchdog, the NHRC is empowered to:
- Conduct fact-finding investigations
- Issue directions to governments and agencies
- Recommend rehabilitation and compensation
- Monitor conditions of institutions and care homes
- Ensure non-discriminatory access to healthcare
The transfer of the case to NHRC marks a shift toward institutional and continuous monitoring, rather than one-time judicial intervention.
Legal and Social Significance
This development is significant because it:
- Strengthens the enforcement of mental healthcare standards across institutions.
- Sets a precedent for addressing abuses in faith-based healing spaces.
- Moves oversight into a specialized human rights monitoring body, ensuring long-term accountability.
- Reaffirms the Supreme Court’s stand that mental illness does not erode human dignity.
- Highlights the need for state coordination, awareness, trained mental health professionals, and regulatory systems.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision to transfer the pleas concerning the protection of mentally ill persons in faith-based asylums to the NHRC underscores the importance of dignity, rights, and humane care. It reflects a reaffirmation of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, which situates mental healthcare within the framework of human rights and personal liberty.
The next steps will depend on how effectively the NHRC monitors compliance, ensures accountability from state and central authorities, and supports the rehabilitation and integration of affected individuals into society.
Also Read
