Holding

The Court held that the Central and State governments have failed to implement the Mental Health Act, 1987 and related statutes, and therefore issued comprehensive directions to enforce the law.

Summary

A tragic fire at a mental asylum in Ervadi, Tamil Nadu, killed 25 chained patients, prompting the Supreme Court to take suo motu action under Article 32. The Court examined the failure of the Central and State governments to implement the Mental Health Act, 1987 and related disability statutes, noting that chaining of mentally ill persons is prohibited. Relying on the statutory provisions defining psychiatric hospitals, licensing requirements, and the duty to establish mental health authorities, the Court concluded that the existing legal framework was not being enforced. Consequently, the Court issued detailed directions for district‑wise surveys, licensing, establishment of State Mental Health Authorities, creation of central and state mental hospitals, and comprehensive affidavits from the governments. The Court also mandated awareness campaigns and regular reporting to ensure compliance. The writ petition was disposed of after these directions were ordered.

Issues considered

Whether the provisions of the Mental Health Act, 1987 and related disability statutes have been duly implemented by the Central and State governments.
Whether the practice of chaining mentally ill persons in asylums violates statutory provisions and fundamental rights.
What specific directions can the Supreme Court issue under its suo motu jurisdiction to enforce compliance with mental health legislation.

Legislation cited

Mental Health Act, 1987s. 2(1), s. 2(q), s. 3, s. 4, s. 5, s. 6, s. 8
National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999s. 21, s. 8(2)(b)
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995

Subjects

Mental health lawChaining of patientsAsylum fireImplementation of Mental Health ActArticle 32Suo motu jurisdictionLicensing of psychiatric facilitiesState Mental Health AuthorityDisability rights

Judgment

> IN RE: DEATH OF 25 CHAINED INMATES IN ASYLUM FIRE A
IN TAMIL NADU

FEBRUARY 5, 2002
r
[M.B. SHAH, B.N. AGRA WAL AND ARIJITPASAYAT, JJ.]
B
Mental Health Act, 1987:

Ss. 2(1), 2(q) 3,4, and 5-Mentally ill persons-Treatment and care-
Fire in a mental asylum-25 mentally ill persons housed in the said mental
... asylum and chained to poles/beds charred to death-Suo motu action by C
Supreme Court-It was noticed that provisions of the Act were not being
implemented by authorities concerned-Also failure on part of the Central/
State Governments/Union Territories to implement the Act and other laws-
Directiom given by Supreme Court to State Governments/Union Territories,
inter nlia, to undertake district wise survey of registered/unregistered D
institutions providing mental health services-Observations of norms for
granting/refusing licences-Governments to establish, if not already
established, State Mental Health Authority and to supervise through nodal
agencies regulation, development and co-ordination of all activities with
respect to mental health services and implement the Act and other laws-
Directions to Union ofIndia/State Governments/Union territories to take steps E
to set up one Central Government run mental hospital in each State/Union
Territory and to take steps to set up full fledged State run mental hospitals
in respective States/Union Territories--Compliance report to be submitted
to the Court-Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of
Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995-National Trust for Welfare of F
Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple
Disabilities Act, 1999.

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (C) No. 334 of2001.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)
G
Dr. A.M. Singhvi (A.C) and K. Ramamurthy Pranab Kumar Mullick
(A.C.), Revathy Raghavan, Krishan Mahajan, Ms. Sunita Sharma, for Ms.
Sushma Suri, Ranji Thomas, for Javed Mahmood Rao, Sanjay R. Hegde, V.G.
Pragasam, Sanjay K. Shandilya for V.D. Khanna, A. Mariarputham, Prakash
Shrivastava, Anil Shrivastav, T.V. Ratnam, K. Subba Rao, Kh. Nobin Singh, H
839
840 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002] l S.C.R.

A Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Ms. A. Subhashini, C. Siddhartha, K.L. Janjani, Y.P.
Singh for Ajay K. Agrawal, Gopal Singh, Ms. Asha, G. Nair for Corporate Law
Group, Tara Chandra Shanna, K.R. Sasiprabhu, Ranjan Mukherjee, Ms. ~. .._
Hemantika Wahi, Ms. Anu Sawhney, Jayshree Anand, AAG. Punjab, Rajeev
'Sharma, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, J.P. Dhanda, Geetanjali Mohan for B.S. Banthia,
B S.V. Deshpande and Arup Banerjee for Ashok Mathur for'the appearing
parties.

The following Order oi the Court was delivered

On the basis of submission note of the Registrar (J!!dicial) to a news
item published in all leading national dailies about a gruesome tragedy in
C which more than 25 mentally challenged patients housed irr a mental asylum
at Ervadi in Rarnanathapuram district were charred to death, the patients could
not escape the blaze as they had been chained to poles or be~, this Court
took suo motu action.

D After considering the factual report, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned
senior counsel was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court and
notice was also issued to the Union of India.

Thereafter, by order dated 15.10.200 I this Court called for the report of
the State of Tamil Nadu on the subject and also sought infonnation on the
E topics which are mentioned, from the State Governments and Union
Government on an affidavit of competent authority.
Thereafter, when the matter was placed before this Court on 21.1.2002,
most of the States sought extension of time for compliance with the order
pas•i;;P by this Court. The matter was adjourned for 29.1.2002. On that day
F also, some pf the State Governments again sought extension of time for
compliance with the directions issued by this Court. Further, learned Amicus
Curiae submitted that the Mental Health Act, 1987 (for short "the 1987 Act")
is not at all implemented by the concerned authorities and there is failure on
the part of Central/State Governments to implement the 1987 Act.
G Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, learned Attorney General appearing on behalf of
the Union Government submitted that the 1987 Act is for the benefit of
mentally ill persons and is required to be implemented right earnestly. He
submitted that the Centre would take appropriate action for implementation
of the 1987 Act as early as possible.
H In our view, it appears that there is slackness on the part of the
·> IN RE: DEA TH OF 25 CHAINED INMATES IN ASYLUM FIRE IN TAMIL NADU 841
concerned authorities to implement the laws enacted by the Parliament. This A
is one such instance.

One of the objects of the 1987 Act is to provide a law relating to the
treatment and care of the mentally ill persons. Notificatfon for implementing
the Act was published in the Gazette of India on 11.1.1993.
B
For the time being we would refer to the definition clause 2(1) which
provides 'mentally ill person' to mean a person who is in need of treatment
by reason of any mental disorder other than mental retardation. Further,
clause 2(q) inter alia provides 'psychiatric hospital and 'psychiatric nursing
home' to mean a nursing home established by any other person for the
treatment and care of mentally ill persons and includes a convalescent home C
established or maintained by any other person for such mentally ill persons.
The said section reads thus:-

"2(q) "psychiatric hospital" or "psychiatric nursing home" means a
hospital or, as the case may be, a nursing home established or D
maintained by the Government or any other person for the treatment
and care of mentally ill persons and includes a convalescent home
established or maintained by the Government or any other person for
such mentally ill persons, but does not include any general hospital
or general nursing home established or maintained by the Government
and which provides also for psychiatric services." E
Further, Section 3 provides that-

(I) The Central Government shall establish an Authority for mental
health with such designation as it may deem fit.

(2) The Authority established under sub-section (1) shall be subject to F
the superintendence, direction and control of the Central Government.

(3) The Authority established under sub-section (I) shall-

(a) be in charge of regulation, development, direction and co-
ordination with respect to Mental Health Services under the G
Central Government and all other matters which, under this Act,
are the concern of the Central Government or any officer or
authority subordinate to the Central Government.
(b) supervise the psychiatric hospitals and psychiatric nursing homes
and other Mental Health Service Agencies (including places in H
l'
842 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] I S.C.R.

A which mentally ill persons may be kept or detained) under the
control of the Central Government.

(c) advise the Central Government on all matters relating to mental
health; and

B (d) discharge such other functions with respect to matters relating
to mental health as the Central Government may require."

Similar provision is made under Section 4 for the establishment of such
authority by the State Government. Thereafter, Section 5 provides that Central
Government may, in any part of India, or the State Government may, within
C the limits of its jurisdiction, establish or maintain psychiatric hospitals or
psychiatric nursing homes for the admission, treatment and care or mentally
ill persons at such places as it thinks fit. Other important section is Section
6 which provides that on and after the commencement of this Act, no person
shall establish or maintain a psychiatric hospital or psychiatric nursing home
D unless he holds a valid licence granted to him under this Act. Section 8
further provides-when licence to continue or establish psychiatric hospital
or psychiatric nursing home should be refused. Prayer is for implementation
of these provisions. It appears that the aforesaid provisions are not •
implemented. Therefore, learned Amicus Curiae sought for issuance of
following directions:-
E
(i) Every State and Union Territory must undertake a district-wise
survey of all registered/unregistered bodies, by whatever name
called, purporting to offer psychiatric/mental health care. All such
bodies should be granted or refused license depending upon
whether minimum prescribed standards are fulfilled or not. In
F case license is rejected, it shall be the responsibility of the SHO
of the concerned police station to ensure that the body stops
functioning and patients are shifted to Government Mental
Hospitals. The process of survey and licensing must be completed
within 2 months and the Chief Secretary of each State must file
G a comprehensive compliance report within 3 months from date of
this order. The compliance report must further state that no
mentally challenged person is chained in any part of the State.

(ii) The Chief Secretary or Additional Chief Secretary designated by
him shall be the nodal agency to coordinate all activities involved
H in implementation of the Mental Health Act, 1987, The Persons
IN RE: DEA TH OF 25 CHAINED INMATES IN ASYLUM FIRE IN TAMIL NADU 843

with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities. Protection of Rights and A
Full Participation) Act. 1995 and The National Trust for Welfare
of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and
Multiple Disabilities Act. 1999. He Shall ensure that there are no
jurisdictional problems or impediments to the effective
implementation of the three Acts between different ministries or
departments. At the Central level, the Cabinet Secretary, B
Government of India or any Secretary designated by him shall be
the nodal agency for the same purpose.

(fu) The Cabinet Secretary, Union oflndia shall file an affidavit in this
Court within one month from date of this order indicating:-
c
(a) the contribution that has been made and that proposed
to be made under Section 21 of the 1999 Act which would
constitute corpus of the National Trust.

(b) Policy of the Central Government towards setting up at
least one Central Government run mental hospital in each D
St1te and Union Territory and definite time schedule for
achieving the said objective.

(c) National Policy, if any, framed u/s 8(2)(b) of the 1995 Act.

(iv) In respect of States/Union Territories that do not have even on
E
full-fledged State Government run mental hospital, the Chief
Secretary of the State/Union Territory must file an Affidavit within
one month from date of this order indicating steps being taken
to establish such full-fledged State Government run mental hospital
in the State Union Territory and a definite time schedule for
establishment of the same. F
(v) Both the Central and State Governments shall undertake a
comprehensive awareness campaign with a special rural focus to
educate people as to provisions of law relating to mental health,
rights of mentally challenged persons, the fact that chaining of
mentally challenged persons is illegal and that mental patients G
should be sent to doctors and not to religious places such as
Temples or Dargahs.

(vi) Every State shall file an affidavit stating clearly:

(a) whether the State Mental Health Authority under Section 3 H
844 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002) I S.C.R.

A of the 1987 Act exists in the State and if so when it was set up.
(b) If it does not so exist, the reasons therefore and when such
an Authority is expected to be established and operationalised. ~

(c) The dates of meetings of those Authorities, which already exist
from the date of inception till date and a short summary of the
B decisions taken.

(d) A statement that the State shall ensure that meetings of the
Authority take place in future at least once in every four months or
at more frequent intervals depending on exigency and that all the
statutory functions and duties of such Authority are duly discharged.
c
(e) The number of prosecutions, penalties or other punitive/coercive
measures taken, if any by each State under the 1987 Act."

At this stage, we have again heard learned counsel for the parties and
learned Attorney General submitted that as a first step the aforesaid directions
D as suggested by the Amicus Curiae be issued and information as sought for
be called for.

We direct accordingly. The State Governments as well as Central
Government shall file affidavits complying the directions mentioned in the
E aforesaid paragraph nos. (i) to (vi). It is further directed that the necessary
affidavit as per order dated 15.10.200 l be also submitted, if not already
tendered.

Stand over for 9.4.2002.

RP. Writ Petition disposed of.