I was forcefully placed in confinement in a mental health institution without consent. I 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, the hearing for which is ongoing. As per the statute, the Review Board is headed by a Chairperson who is a retired District Judge. I am the complainant and am appearing party-in-person, and the respondents are medical practioners (Psychiatrists). Though the judge seems to be impartial, however, he is treating me with utter disregard and contempt. There is clear distinction when he talks to me versus when he talks to the respondents and/or other board members. To the respondents and other board members he talks very politely and respectfully even if they make some mistakes, however, to me he talks with high disregard. He does not allow me to speak freely and micromanages as if a school/college principal tries to discipline their students to the extent that he expects to seek his permission before drinking water. He also addresses me with disrespecful form of pronouns and verb declensions used in Indian Languages. When I asked him to address me respectfully, he said, if you are expecting that then you have to behave in a such a manner and maintain proper decorum. Immediately, and with no relevance, he 'ordered' me to keep my belongings (a small carrybag with necessary documents) and water bottle on the floor or outside and not on the conference room table. To the best of my knowledge I have maintained a very proper decorum. The only error I may have committed is, I missed one hearing and arrived late for a couple of hearings for which I properly informed the reasons, which again he dismissed them as not justified. -- Irrespective of anything, is the Chairperson's behaviour acceptable? If not, whom should be notified of the Chairperson's such highly arbitrary, belittling and contemptuous behaviour? -- Can we request for change of judge (because he does not seem to be a person who will correct his behaviour even if a complaint/greivance is lodged)? Is that option available for such quasi-judicial bodies? -- If the judge/chairperson, repeats this behaviour in the next or subsequent hearings, can we walk out showing our discontent or would it be considered as contempt of court (the Review board seems to be a quasi-judicial body)?
1) You should not walk out of hearing .
2) chairperson should give you patient hearing
3) no need to request for change of judge . You should appear on time for hearing
i4) it is better to engage a lawyer to appear on your behalf
5) if you want to appear in person submit written arguments
If t=you find the conduct of the chairperson disdainful in repeated occasion then you can ask for his change or removal by filing a writ petition in the high court.
An adjudicator must now compassion and neutrality to both parties.
From your account, the conduct you describe — differential treatment, belittling language, unreasonable restrictions on personal comfort (such as keeping a water bottle on the table), and a generally dismissive approach — is not in line with the principles of fairness, impartiality, and respect that are expected of quasi-judicial officers, including the Chairperson of a Mental Health Review Board under the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017.
Acceptability of behaviour:
While a presiding officer has the authority to maintain decorum and regulate proceedings, such authority must be exercised even-handedly and with basic courtesy towards all parties. The Mental Health Review Board functions under Sections 73–77 of the Act, and its members are bound by principles of natural justice. Repeatedly belittling one party or imposing arbitrary rules unrelated to decorum may amount to misconduct or at least breach of professional ethics for judicial/quasi-judicial officers.
Where to complain:
The Review Board is a statutory body constituted by the State Authority for Mental Health Services(SAMHS) or Central Authority, depending on jurisdiction. You can lodge a written complaint to the State Mental Health Authority (SMHA) about the Chairperson’s conduct, setting out specific dates, words used, and actions taken.
You may also escalate to the State Health Department’s Principal Secretary or equivalent administrative head, since appointments and oversight come through the State Government.
Keep your complaint factual, without emotive language, and attach any witnesses’ statements if available.
Request for change of Chairperson:
The Act does not expressly provide a “peremptory challenge” to replace a Chairperson at a party’s request. However, you may file a written application for recusal before the Board itself, citing loss of faith in impartial adjudication. If refused, you can approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking replacement on grounds of bias. Courts have entertained such writs where reasonable apprehension of bias exists.
Walking out of hearings:
The Mental Health Review Board, while quasi-judicial, has powers akin to a civil court in certain respects (Section 78). Walking out without permission can be recorded as non-participation and could prejudice your case; it may not technically be “contempt of court” under the Contempt of Courts Act, but it can weaken your position. If the behaviour recurs, the better course is to politely record your objection on the record and, if necessary, request an adjournment to place a written grievance before the SMHA or High Court.
Practical Steps:
Maintain a detailed written log of each incident — date, exact words, actions, and any witnesses.
At the next hearing, if mistreated, calmly state for the record: “I respectfully object to the manner in which I am being addressed, as it affects my ability to present my case.”
File a contemporaneous written grievance to the SMHA and copy it to the Health Department.
If bias continues, seek recusal or move the High Court for a direction to replace the Chairperson.
Conclusion: The Chairperson’s conduct, as described, is not acceptable in a quasi-judicial forum. Complaints should go to the State Mental Health Authority and the High Court can be approached for relief if bias prejudices your right to a fair hearing. Walking out is not advisable; instead, document and escalate through proper legal channels.
Walking out of the court/tribunal for any reason will neither be a solution to your problem nor it is a good suggestion.
The tribunal is also a judicial body hence it has powers akin to civil procedure code.
If you walk out then the case will be decided against you in your absence treating you as exparte.
Your complaint agaisnt the judge is only towards his behavior with you and not regarding the judicial administration.
The judge may appear uncomfortable to you but he has not rendered any decision affecting your interest yet.
You have yourself stated that the judge seems to be impartial hence your hopes for justice is not at stake hence it may not be advisable to seek for change of bench.
However instead of fighting it as party in person you may better engage the services of an able and skilled advocate who will take up your feelings before court accordingly and make sure that you get justice
Dear client
What you’ve described isn’t okay. Even if the Chairperson thinks you’ve been late before, he’s still bound to treat you with basic courtesy. The Mental Healthcare Act itself talks about dignity and respect for people involved in proceedings, and that applies to how hearings are conducted. A judge or quasi-judicial officer talking down to one side while being polite to the other is a red flag for bias.
If you want to take this further, the right place to complain is the State Mental Health Authority, because the Review Board works under it. You can also go to the High Court under writ jurisdiction if you feel your right to a fair hearing is being compromised.
Changing the Chairperson isn’t an automatic right here, but you can ask for the case to be heard by a different panel, citing a reasonable fear of bias. Whether they agree depends on the Authority’s discretion or the Chairperson’s own decision to step aside.
Walking out of a hearing mid-way isn’t a good idea. While it’s not exactly “contempt of court” in the strict sense, they could note it as non-cooperation, and it might hurt your case. If you feel uncomfortable, it’s better to put your objection on record politely, ask for an adjournment, and then follow it up with a written complaint to the Authority.
If you want, I can word that complaint and also give you a short statement you can read in the next hearing so your concerns are officially noted. That way, you’re covered both ways.
Based on the circumstances described in your query, your father is the complainant in a criminal case involving the fraudulent execution of a sale deed on his property in Vrindavan by an accused impersonator. You are concerned with several aspects: the police’s power to seize original documents for forensic analysis, inclusion of statements from civil proceedings in the criminal chargesheet, and the evidentiary use of findings from Aadhaar verification.
Regarding your specific query about the inclusion of statements made by the accused in civil pleadings within the chargesheet of the pending criminal case, the procedural position under Indian law is as follows. Civil and criminal proceedings are considered independent. The police, when preparing a chargesheet under Section 173(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, focus on evidence gathered as part of the criminal investigation, including statements of witnesses recorded during that investigation and evidence directly relevant to establishing the commission of alleged offences.
Generally, police do not incorporate verbatim statements or pleadings made by the accused in ongoing or parallel civil cases into the criminal chargesheet, as such material is created in a different legal context and may not satisfy the rules of relevance and admissibility applicable to criminal proceedings. The fact that an accused is contesting civil proceedings or making particular assertions in civil litigation does not, by itself, constitute evidence of criminal culpability or intent.
However, if civil pleadings by the accused contain statements or conduct that directly demonstrate intent, knowledge, fabrication, or admissions of fact that are relevant to the criminal case, the police may make brief reference to those facts in the narrative or background section of the chargesheet. Still, only the criminal court has the authority to determine the admissibility and evidentiary value of such material during trial. The mere existence of vexatious or repeated civil suits by the accused may be described by the police as a background to establish a pattern of conduct or harassment; however, the full content of civil pleadings or statements is not typically annexed to or treated as primary evidence in the chargesheet.
In conclusion, the Police are procedurally correct in their primary position that civil and criminal proceedings are separate, and that the criminal chargesheet primarily includes evidence and statements collected during the criminal investigation. The statements made by the accused in civil pleadings are not automatically made part of the criminal chargesheet and are generally excluded unless there is specific, direct, and exceptional relevance to the criminal matter—which is for the criminal court to ultimately assess. If the substance of those statements is to be relied upon, that determination must be made within the framework of criminal law and procedure during trial.
you need to complaint about the same to the chief judge or superior authority seeking change of the presiding officer showing reasons of fair trial
Dear Client,
As a member of the review board representing the judiciary, the chairperson is bound to uphold the principles of natural justice. Any behavior that is belittling or arbitrary towards aggrieved parties essentially violates the mandates of fair hearing laid down under Article 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. The State Mental Health Authority must be notified of this grievance via a complaint. Additionally, you may file an writ petition under Article 226 before the respective Hich Court, citing the violation of your fundamental rights.
There is no specific authority as such. However, you may make a written representation before the state mental health authority requesting for the reconstitution of the Mental health review board.
Quasi-judicial bodies such as the mental health review board fall outside the scope of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Hence the court doesn’t have the power to punish you for contempt. However, walking out or showing disrespect towards the chairperson is not advisable, since the court still has the power to record bad conduct of the parties and accordingly proceed the matter as ex-parte, which is highly detrimental to you interests.
I hope this answer helps. In case of future queries, please feel free to contact us. Thank you.
