Mental Healthcare Act Cannot Be Used As Litigation Weapon In Property Disputes: Bombay High Court

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has ruled that provisions of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 cannot be invoked by litigants to question an opponent’s mental capacity for gaining an advantage in ongoing disputes. The court has cautioned that welfare legislation meant to protect vulnerable persons must not be converted into a litigation tactic.

Welfare Law Misuse Warning

Justice Farhan Dubash, on February 17, observed that directing a Mental Health Review Board (MHRB) to assess a person’s mental health solely on the basis of allegations made by an opposing litigant could result in misuse of the law. Such an approach, the court said, risks allowing adversarial parties to weaponise a welfare legislation intended to safeguard rights.

Limits Of Section 105

Section 105 of the Mental Healthcare Act enables courts to refer a person to an MHRB when proof of mental illness is produced during judicial proceedings. However, the court clarified that the provision must be interpreted in line with the broader objective of the statute.

Rights Over Litigation Strategy

“What is implicit in a collective reading of these provisions is that their underlying objective is the protection of the rights of persons with mental illness and not the creation of a mechanism that may be weaponised by a party to gather proof of mental illness against an adversary,” the court said.

Property Dispute Context

The ruling came while dismissing an interim application filed by a son seeking constitution of an independent medical board to examine his father’s mental condition during an ongoing property dispute. The son had argued that his father was mentally incapable of contesting the proceedings and relied on a medical certificate mentioning episodes of confusion and forgetfulness linked to diabetes-related hypoglycaemia.

Temporary Symptoms Not Illness

The court noted that the symptoms recorded were temporary and medically reversible, arising from fluctuating blood sugar levels, and could not be equated with “mental illness” as defined under the Act.

Guarding Against Harassment

“To permit such a course of action would be to arm unscrupulous litigants with the provisions of the Act as instruments of harassment rather than protection,” the court observed, adding that such an interpretation would open the floodgates for litigants to routinely question the mental capacity of opponents for tactical advantage.

Also Watch:

Shift To Rights-Based Law

Emphasising the evolution of mental health law in India, the court said the 2017 legislation represents a shift from a custodial and stigma-driven framework to a rights-based regime focused on dignity, autonomy, treatment and rehabilitation.

Shield, Not Sword

The court further held that Section 105 is intended to function “as a shield for the protection of persons with mental illness and not as a sword to be wielded against them by an adversarial party.”

Plea Dismissed By Court

Finding that the application was aimed at gaining an advantage in pending litigation rather than protecting the father’s welfare, the court dismissed the plea, also noting that a similar application seeking identical relief had earlier been withdrawn without liberty to refile.

To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/