The Kerala High Court directed the State Police Chief to ensure that all police officers are sensitized on the provisions of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 for better understand of mentally ill persons. 

The single-headed bench of Justice K Babu passed the direction based on a suggestion put forward by Amicus Curiae in the matter, Advocate V Ramkumar Nambiar.

“The State Police Chief will ensure that the Police Officers in all the Police Stations in the State are sensitized to the relevant provisions of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 so as to ensure proper, prompt and effective compliance with the provisions, which would pave the way for ameliorating the grievances of the mentally ill persons,” the order stated.

The case before the High Court concerned an application filed on behalf of a man who suffered from bipolar disorder and depression, and had suicidal tendencies.

In the said matter, the petitioner submitted that he was not fit to stand trial or defend a criminal case filed against him since he was unsound of mind. He faced charges under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 9 and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

The Court earlier rejected an application filed through his wife under Section 328 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which deals with the procedure that is to be followed in cases where the accused in a criminal case is of unsound mind.

This prompted the petitioner to approach the High Court.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial court had not perused relevant material that would prove the mental illness and incapacity of the petitioner to make his defence.

It was further submitted that the trial court was not an expert in determining the mental status of the accused petitioner. He also relied on Section 105 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 to contend that the matter should have been referred to an expert board.

The Amicus Curiae, relying on Section 105 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, submitted that it was mandatory on the part of the trial court to refer the matter for further scrutiny to such a board.

Since this exercise was not undertaken by the trial court, the High Court ought to interfere in the matter, the Amicus submitted.

After going through the medical records of the petitioner and precedents, the High Court ultimately accepted the submissions put forward by the Amicus Curiae and allowed the petition.

The Court has now ordered the trial court to reconsider the matter and proceed by strictly following the procedure contemplated in the CrPC and Section 105 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017.

The petitioner was represented by Advocates Joseph George, PK Hassankutty and PA Rejimon. The respondents were represented by Advocate G Sudheer.