ALLHABAD| 6TH JUNE 2025
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has underscored a critical legislative vacuum in the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 (MH Act, 2017), particularly concerning the determination of the “wills and preferences” of mentally ill persons. This came while quashing the rejection order issued by the Mansik Swasthya Punarvilokan Board, Barabanki, which had earlier dismissed the petitioner’s application to be appointed as a representative for his mentally disabled aunt.
Case Overview: Saurabh Mishra v. State Of U.P. & Others
Case No.: WRIT – C No. – 10898 of 2024
Petitioner Counsel: Advocate Surendra Singh
Respondent Counsel: C.S.C.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The case revolves around a woman suffering from Moderate Intellectual Disability with an IQ of 44 and a disability rating of 75% as per her certificate. Following the death of her father, a retired Noter and Drafter in the Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, she was granted a family pension of ₹14,400 until her marriage or demise.
Her nephew, Saurabh Mishra, stepped forward to take care of her in light of her deteriorating physical and mental health. Claiming to be the only close relative willing to take responsibility — with other family members submitting no-objection affidavits — he applied before the Board under Section 14 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, seeking to be appointed as her nominated representative.
However, the Board rejected the application citing the petitioner’s criminal history, which led to the present writ petition before the High Court.
KEY LEGAL ISSUES AND COURT OBSERVATIONS
The Division Bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla addressed crucial aspects of the MH Act:
“Further, this Court notes that the MH Act had laid down certain standards and factors to be considered while determining the ‘best interest’ of the mentally ill person. However, no guidance exists as to what would constitute the ‘wills and preferences’ of the person.”
The Bench noted that although Section 14 mentions criteria for providing total support, the Act lacks explicit guidance on interpreting the individual’s “wills and preferences.” Moreover, it pointed out that the MH Act does not address:
Management of financial affairs
Appointment of guardians
Handling of movable and immovable property
“Thus, there is a clear statutory vacuum.”
PARENS PATRIAE JURISDICTION: COURT’S ROLE
While exercising parens patriae jurisdiction, the Court emphasized that even though the procedure—whether through the Board, Appellate Authority, or Court—might vary:
“…so long as the ‘wills and preferences’ of the mentally ill person and the other factors set out in the rules are borne in mind by the Board or this Court while exercising its parens patriae jurisdiction.”
CRIMINAL HISTORY: NO MORAL TURPITUDE INVOLVED
Addressing the grounds of rejection, the Bench discussed the criminal allegations against the petitioner:
“This Court in the facts of the present case and taking a holistic view of the sections invoked against the petitioner in two criminal cases pending against the petitioner, is of the considered view that the offences alleged does not involve any offence of moral turpitude.”
FINAL JUDGMENT AND DIRECTIONS
Considering that the opposite party had no one else to support her and was mentally and physically unfit to make decisions, the Court held that:
The petitioner, being her nephew and only close relative, was a suitable person to be appointed.
The affidavits of no objection from other relatives were valid.
The impugned order by the Board was quashed.
“…the Court exercised its parens patriae jurisdiction and quashed the impugned order while directing the Petitioner to be appointed as the nominated representative under the MH Act, 2017 and to provide support to her under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016.”
CONCLUSION
This judgment not only reinstates the petitioner’s right to support his mentally ill aunt but also exposes the glaring legislative lacunae in the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, particularly regarding the definition and determination of a person’s “wills and preferences.” The High Court’s decision sets a precedent and calls for urgent policy reform to fill these statutory gaps and strengthen the rights of mentally ill individuals under Indian law.
