You can choose an advocate suiting your requirements and having desired credibility either from this website or outside in your own place or visit a local bar association and find one of your choice by yourself.
Looking for an advocate specialising in the Mental Healthcare Act 2017
I had a long-standing disagreeement and misunderstanding with parents (domestic matters). Instead of settling the matter with the court or the police if needed, they tried (or still trying) to portray me as mentally unsound and require treatment, since I do not comply to their narrative. I was forcibly institutionalised for 25 days psychiatric confinment with no proper grounds. I have registered a complaint against the practioners and the establishment to the Mental Health Review Board as per sec 73 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017. I have some queries and wish to talk to an advocate who has specialised or dealt in the provisions of the Mental Health Care Act, 2017 (especially in the following sections/chapters of the act — Chapter 3: Advance Directive; Chapter 4: Nominated Representative; Chapter 11: Mental Health Review Boards; Sec 89- Forced Admissions)
Asked 9 months ago in Constitutional Law
13 answers received from multiple lawyers
Lawyers are available now to answer your questions.
13 Answers
Best of luck
You will not find any lawyer who only specialises in field of mental health
you can engage any lawyer from this website for phone consultation
3) For forced admissiinThe individual must be diagnosed with a mental illness and be deemed a danger to themselves or others, or be incapable of caring for themselves due to their mental illness.
4) Involuntary admission often requires an application from a relative, friend, or in some cases, the police, along with medical certificates from at least two doctors.
- As per law, none having right to force you to take medical treatment against your consent
- You can file a complaint against them before the police and also before the Indian Medical Board against the
said practitioners .
- As per Supreme Court in the matter of Common Cause versus Union of India , a competent adult of sound mind has the right to refuse medical treatment—even if it leads to death—subject to certain safeguards.
- You can contact any lawyer of this website for the said work.
Dear Sir,
You are suggested to go the link talk to a lawyer and get an advocate of your choice from this platform. Get one to one discussion with the concerned lawyer and then decide the action.
You need a lawyer with experience in the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, especially in areas like forced admissions (Sec 89), Advance Directives (Ch. 3), Nominated Representatives (Ch. 4), and Review Boards (Ch. 11).
Since you've already filed a complaint under Section 73, a specialized advocate can help you:
-
Challenge the legality of your confinement
-
Represent you before the Mental Health Review Board
-
Protect your rights from further misuse of the law
Action Steps:
-
Contact the Punjab State Legal Services Authority (SLSA) or District Bar Association to locate mental health law specialists.
-
Alternatively, seek help from human rights NGOs or lawyers listed on legal platforms like LawRato, iPleaders, or Bar & Bench with a focus on mental health rights.
Let me know your city, and I can help search for names.
I had given a petition challenging forced admission under sec 89 of the Mental Health Care Act, 2017 before the District Mental Health Review Board, Chennai. Appeared Party-in-Person. Chief Examination of the Petitioner and Respondent was completed. Cross-examination of the respondents were also scheduled. However, in the absence of the petitioner (note: the petitioner had intimated his absence via e-mail), the Board has passed a final order dismissing the case stating that the had petitioner failed to prove the allegations without completing the trial (ie., the cross-examination and later). Sec 83 of the Act mention that any person may prefer an appeal to the High Court of the State within 30 days. Now as the petitioner I want to file an appeal to the High Court of Madras to remand back the case to the MHRB, Chennai and complete a proper trial. I do not want the HC itself to go into the merits of the case but only take into account the denial of cross examination (gross violation of principles of natural justice and violation of audi alteram partem) and remand the case to MHRB. Under this scenario, what should the petitioner do? File a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal or file a Writ Petition? Pls clarify. IMPORTANT: It is very strongly appealed that advocates don't post Chatbot generated responses.
Asked 3 days ago
As the Act is clear it will be the appeal and HC will not decide the same and will remind it back for cross & completion of trial
Q2: The major ground of the case amidst other procedural violations is denial of cross-examination which is a serious error on the side of the MHRB. When an appeal is filed, who defends the case, whether it is the counsel of the Board (the quasi-judicial body) or the medical practioners? Is it necessary to include the practioners names as respondents?
Asked 3 days ago
Yes you can do the needful as advised
Since you are aggrieved by the decision of the MHRB dismissing the petition for the reasons cited therein, you can vent out your grievances in the appeal and seek for remedy and relief accordingly, hence you can choose pray for the desired relief accordingly though it is immaterial for the high court to decide about the case on merits or as per your prayer, you cannot dictate terms to the appellate court.
If you prefer an appeal against the decision of the MHRB, then you have to implead the original respondent as respondent in the appeal also.
You cannot rope in new person in the appeal as respondent.
Under Section 83 of the
Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, you should file a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (CMA) rather than a writ petition.
When a statute provides a specific right of appeal to the High Court, that statutory remedy must be exhausted before a writ petition can be considered. Since Section 83 explicitly states that any person aggrieved by a decision of the Board may "prefer an appeal to the High Court" within 30 days, the CMA is the correct procedural vehicle for this challenge.
Counsel appears on behalf of the board as Respondents
you mention board as respondent
and your parents who admitted you in mental hospital also as respondents
In your case, the remedy is clearly provided under the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 itself. Since you are challenging the order of the Mental Health Review Board on the ground of denial of cross-examination and violation of principles of natural justice, the correct and most appropriate remedy is to file a statutory appeal under Section 83 before the High Court, rather than invoking writ jurisdiction at the first instance.
A Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (or equivalent appellate proceeding as per High Court rules) under Section 83 is the proper route because the Act specifically provides for an appeal mechanism. Courts generally expect you to exhaust this statutory remedy first. A writ petition under Article 226 may be entertained only in exceptional circumstances, but here, since a direct appeal is available, the High Court may insist on that route.
Your strongest ground in appeal will be violation of audi alteram partem, as the matter was decided without completing cross-examination despite your prior intimation of absence. This is a serious procedural illegality, and you should specifically seek a remand of the matter back to the MHRB for fresh adjudication after completing evidence.
As regards parties to be impleaded, the Mental Health Review Board is a quasi-judicial body, so ordinarily it is made a pro forma respondent. The primary contesting respondents would be the hospital/mental health establishment and the concerned medical practitioners, since they are the parties whose actions are under challenge. Therefore, it is advisable to implead them specifically to avoid any technical objection.
On the question of who defends the case, typically:
- The State/Board may be represented through Government Pleader, and
- The medical establishment/practitioners will defend through their own counsel
Given the nature of your case (forced admission under Section 89), the High Court is likely to examine procedural fairness closely, and a remand is a realistic and practical relief if the violation is established.
You should ensure that your appeal clearly highlights:
- Your intimation of absence
- Incomplete cross-examination
- Premature closure of proceedings
- Resultant prejudice caused to you
This will form the core of your case for setting aside the impugned order.
