Punjab & Haryana High Court Pulls Up Punjab, Haryana & Chandigarh Over Mental Healthcare Act Delay; Chief Secretaries Ordered to File Personal Affidavits
In a significant order highlighting concerns over the implementation of mental health laws, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Chief Secretaries of Punjab, Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh to personally examine the status of compliance with the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, and submit detailed affidavits before the court. Expressing dissatisfaction over the prolonged delay in implementing the legislation, the court observed that the issue had become “a matter of serious concern” and required accountability at the highest administrative level.
The order came during the hearing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking effective enforcement of the Mental Healthcare Act, particularly the provisions aimed at ensuring community-based care and rehabilitation for persons living with mental illness. Nearly eight years after the Act came into force, the High Court remarked that several key statutory requirements remain unfulfilled despite repeated judicial directions issued over the years.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor expressed disappointment over what it described as the continued failure of the concerned governments to implement the law in its true spirit. The judges observed that despite multiple opportunities and earlier directions from the court, the implementation of the Mental Healthcare Act had not progressed in the manner expected from the states of Punjab and Haryana.
The Bench noted that the legislation was enacted with the objective of protecting one of the most vulnerable sections of society. Individuals living with mental illness often face social exclusion, inadequate access to treatment and difficulties in safeguarding their own rights. The court observed that these circumstances make it the responsibility of governments to ensure complete implementation of every safeguard provided under the law.
Making its concern clear, the court remarked that it was unfortunate that even after repeated judicial interventions, the statutory framework envisaged under the Mental Healthcare Act had not been fully established. The judges stated that nearly eight years have passed since the legislation became operational, yet several mandatory provisions continue to remain only on paper. Calling the situation unacceptable, the Bench described the delay as “a matter of serious concern.”
To ensure direct administrative accountability, the High Court directed the Chief Secretaries of Punjab and Haryana to personally examine every issue raised in the proceedings. They have been asked to file comprehensive affidavits detailing the steps taken by their respective governments to comply with the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, as well as previous directions issued by the High Court.
The court’s order makes it clear that responsibility for implementation cannot remain confined to departmental officials alone. By seeking affidavits from the highest-ranking bureaucrats in the two states, the Bench has signalled that compliance with statutory obligations must receive attention at the highest levels of governance.
The High Court also issued similar directions to the Chief Secretary of the Union Territory of Chandigarh. The Union Territory administration has been instructed to submit a separate affidavit explaining the status of implementation of the Act within Chandigarh. In particular, the affidavit must clarify whether the statutory institutions mandated under the legislation have been established and are functioning as required.
Among the institutions specifically referred to by the court are the State Mental Health Authority and the Mental Health Review Board. These bodies play a central role in implementing the Mental Healthcare Act by monitoring mental healthcare services, safeguarding the rights of persons with mental illness, reviewing complaints and ensuring that treatment facilities operate in accordance with legal standards.
During the hearing, the Bench took note of the position presented by the Haryana government. Although the state has reportedly framed the rules required under the Mental Healthcare Act, the judges observed that framing rules alone cannot be treated as complete compliance with the legislation.
According to the court, Haryana has yet to establish several key institutions envisaged under the Act. The State Mental Health Authority has reportedly not been constituted, while the Mental Health Review Board has also not been set up. The Bench further observed that several other statutory obligations prescribed under the legislation continue to remain pending.
The judges pointed out that an effective legal framework requires both regulations and functioning institutions. Without the establishment of the statutory bodies created by Parliament, the objectives of the Mental Healthcare Act cannot be achieved in practice. Merely notifying rules, the court observed, is insufficient unless the institutional machinery required for implementation is operational.
With regard to Punjab, the High Court recorded that the state government sought one week’s additional time to file its affidavit regarding compliance with the Act. The Bench accepted the request while making it clear that the government would be expected to place complete details regarding the status of implementation before the next hearing.
The affidavit to be submitted by Chandigarh is also expected to provide detailed information regarding the constitution and functioning of the mandatory authorities under the Act. The court has sought clarity on whether the institutional mechanisms intended to protect the rights of persons living with mental illness have actually been established in the Union Territory.
Throughout the hearing, the Bench repeatedly underlined the welfare-oriented nature of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017. The legislation was enacted to ensure that individuals suffering from mental illness receive treatment with dignity, enjoy legal protection and have access to rehabilitation and community-based support systems. The court observed that governments have a statutory obligation to implement every provision of the law without unnecessary delay.
The judges also highlighted the fact that persons living with mental illness frequently find themselves unable to adequately protect their own legal and social interests. This places a greater responsibility on governments and public authorities to ensure that the safeguards created by Parliament are translated into effective institutions and functioning services.
The matter came before the High Court through a Public Interest Litigation filed by Pushpanjali Trust, represented by petitioner-in-person Aditya Rametra. The petition primarily seeks effective implementation of the MentalHealthcare Act, with particular emphasis on Section 19(3) of the legislation.
Section 19(3) provides for the establishment of community-based group homes for persons living with mental illness. Such facilities are intended to support rehabilitation, independent living and community integration for individuals who may not require institutional care but still need structured assistance and support.
The petition also urges the authorities to formulate a comprehensive policy for setting up these community-based facilities within a defined time frame. According to the plea, adequate rehabilitation services and community support systems remain essential for protecting the rights and dignity of persons living with mental health conditions.
The High Court’s latest directions indicate that it intends to closely monitor the implementation of the Mental Healthcare Act across Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh. By seeking personal affidavits from the Chief Secretaries, the court has made it clear that responsibility for compliance rests with the highest levels of the administration and cannot be indefinitely postponed.
The matter has now been listed for further hearing on August 27, when the court is expected to examine the affidavits filed by the three administrations. The responses are likely to provide a detailed picture of the current status of implementation of the Mental Healthcare Act, the establishment of statutory authorities, compliance with previous judicial directions and the steps being taken to strengthen mental healthcare governance across the region.
The proceedings are expected to have far-reaching implications for the implementation of mental health laws in Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh, particularly with regard to institutional accountability, statutory compliance and the protection of the rights of persons living with mental illness.
