The conclusions and directions of the Court in this judgment are
summarised as under:
(i) Protection against an attack on the right of life, liberty, privacy and
dignity can be sought not only against the State but also against non-State
actors. Article 21 places an obligation both on state and non-state actors not
to deprive a person of life, liberty, privacy and dignity except in accordance
with the procedure established by law. In other words Articles 15 (2), 17, 19,
21 and 23 acknowledge the horizontal nature of those fundamental rights.
They can be enforced against not just the State but non-state actors as well.
(ii) In a habeas corpus petition when the plea before the Court is that a
person should be protected against coercive retributive action of her parents,
for making personal life choices, the Court shall not hesitate to exercise its
jurisdiction to grant relief. In effect, the Court would be recognizing that the
threat to the right of ‗choice‘ of a person and thereby right to life, liberty,
privacy and dignity can very well come from the person‘s own parents
irrespective of the age and gender of such person.
(iii) The actions of Z‘s parents in removing her forcibly from the Petitioners‘
residence and getting her admitted without her consent to the CIMBS on 11th
June 2017, with the aid of the local police, the staff of Almas, and the staff
of CIMBS, was in clear violation of Z‘s fundamental rights to life, liberty
and the right to dignity enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. This
violation of her rights was triggered by her exercising her freedom of choice
as a female adult by choosing to leave her home, and deciding where she
would like to reside. The Court rejects the plea of Z‘s parents that they acted
in the larger interests of their daughter and in consideration of her well-being
since their actions indicate the opposite.
(iv) The procedure for involuntary admission under Section 19 MHA is only
applicable when the person has been found to be mentally ill as required by
law and a satisfaction has been reached to that end. Admitting a person
under Section 19 MHA merely for observation cannot be countenanced as
doing so would be in violation of a person‘s rights to life, liberty, and
dignity granted under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
(v) Section 19 (1) read with Section 19 (2) of the MHA mandates that the
medical officer in-charge has to record two kinds of satisfaction – first, in
terms of Section 19 (1) of the MHA, the satisfaction that it is in the interest
of the medically ill person that they necessarily be admitted to a mental
health institution; and second, the satisfaction in terms of the proviso to
Section 19 (2) of the MHA that it is proper to cause such mentally ill person
to be examined by two medical practitioners working in the hospital itself
instead of requiring the two certificates as provided under Section 19 (2) of
the MHA. The medical officer in-charge cannot delegate this crucial
function of the recording of the satisfaction of two separate kinds to some
other person.
(vi) In the present case, the satisfaction for the purposes of Section 19 (1)
MHA could not have been arrived at by Dr. Sunil Mittal by just listening to
his colleagues on the phone (or by a WhatsApp message). Such satisfaction
could have been arrived at by Dr. Sunil Mittal only after interacting with Z.
Clearly that interaction did not take place in the present case.
(vii) A person cannot be admitted to a mental health institution in order to
determine whether she requires such admission. The determination that she
requires admission should be prior to her admission and not later. The
involuntary admission of Z to the CIMBS at 7.55 pm on 11th June 2017 was,
therefore, in clear violation of the requirement of Section 19 (1) MHA read
with Section 19 (2) MHA.
(viii) A professional psychiatrist requires personal interaction with a person
before making a diagnosis of such person‘s mental condition. A psychiatrist
cannot determine a mental state of a person by merely discussing the
symptoms and conditions with another fellow psychiatrist over the
telephone. To do so is illegal and unconstitutional.
(x) The MCI should formulate a separate code of ethics for psychiatrists to
follow, which will reinforce the law.
(xi) The practice adopted in the present case by Dr. Sunil Mittal, Dr. Raj
Mishra, and Dr. Sameer Kalani was in breach of the law, professional
medical ethics and norms. The question as to what action is to be taken
against them is left to the MCI to decide. MCI will take note of this being
the second known instance in twenty years of violation of the law and ethics
by Dr. Sunil Mittal and the Delhi Psychiatry Centre.
(xii) Z is permitted to file a formal complaint with the MCI relying upon the
affidavits and records submitted by CIMBS in this matter. If such complaint
is filed, it is expected that the MCI will deal with it promptly and render a
decision not later than six months from the date of receiving such complaint.
(xiii) The Almas ambulance staff grossly neglected the duty of care owed to
Z. They proceeded to abet the abduction of Z and administered drugs to her
by injection in the absence of any medical records and on the mere say so of
Z‘s family. This is a fit case for revocation of the registration of Almas as an
ambulance company if it is so registered and stopping their further
functions.
(xiv) Almas and its team have been party to depriving Z of her liberty and
virtually rendering her into the custody of the hospital without her consent.
Almas has to be restrained from offering any type of ambulance services. A
peremptory direction is issued to the Government of NCT of Delhi to take
action in regard to Almas and other ambulances, on being checked, which
have been registered in states outside the NCT of Delhi but are operating in
Delhi with impunity and in violation of the applicable guidelines.
(xv) The police has abetted the flagrant violation of Z‘s fundamental rights
to life, liberty, privacy and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. A
full-fledged inquiry be conducted by the police into the roles of SI Yogesh
Kumar and HC Praveen in this entire matter.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P. (CRL.) 1804/2017 & CM No. 9963/2017
Decided on: 18th April, 2018
DR. SANGAMITRA ACHARYA V STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS
CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR
JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
