New Delhi: The Supreme Court (SC) on Monday sought a response from the Maharashtra government on a plea alleging that it was still following the provisions of a repealed law which required "a reception order from a court" for admission of a mentally ill person into a mental hospital.
Parliament enacted the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 which repealed the Mental Health Act, 1987 and under the new law, a person suffering from any kind of mental disability or disorder is not required to be armed with a reception order from a judicial magistrate to be admitted in a mental hospital.
A bench of Chief Justice S A Bobde and Justice B R Gavai issued a notice to the state government and the Union Health Ministry on the Public interest litigation (PIL) filed by lawyer Gaurav Kumar Bansal alleging that Maharashtra government was still following the old repealed Act to deal with the admission of mentally ill patients into hospitals.
Also read: Shiv Sena demands Fadnavis to quit
"The action of the state of Maharashtra is not arbitrary but is against the conscious decision of Parliament in enforcing a repealed law. It is a well-settled proposition of law that every executive action requires the authority of law; the circular dated January 5, 2019 (of state government), is not passed under any authority of law," the plea said.
In an order issued on January 5, the state government has written to all judicial magistrates in the state to follow the provisions of the old repealed law and pass reception orders on the admission of mentally ill patients.
"Case of the petitioner is that once Parliament while enacting Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 has noted that Mental Health Act, 1987 is hereby repealed, then the state of Maharashtra has no power to decide that state will adopt the procedure of a repealed act, hence the present petition," it said.
Terming the decision of state government as "highly illegal, irrational and arbitrary", the plea has sought quashing of the government order.
Also read:'Maha' political crisis: Congress slams BJP over closure of irrigation cases
