Nathalie Vandenbyvanghe v. The State of Tamil Nadu

For Petitioner : Mr. T.R. Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel for Mrs. Pushpa Sathyanarayana. For Respondents : Mr. P. Kumaresan, Addl. Public Prosecutor.O R D E RPrabha Sridevan, J.A foreign national came to our country as a tourist, he losthis passport, he could not speak English. He has no mentalillness, yet, he was rounded up along with more than 100 persons,and was issued reception orders under the Mental Health Act,1987. Disturbed that he did not return to his homeland, hisdaughter filed this habeas corpus petition. 2. The facts are these :The father of the petitioner herein, one RogerVandenbyvanghe, aged about 61 years, was visiting India to seekthe blessings of Matha Amritandamayi. He had a valid passportand visa. His visa was valid upto 8.6.2008. He lost his passportand other travel documents along with his personal belongings,including his clothes. He knew only French language and no otherlanguage. He was also unable to communicate with anybody. He waswandering on the roads in Kanyakumari District. He had no moneyand he had to live seeking alms and that is how he made hissurvival. When he did not return to his home country beyond thedate of expiry of his visa, his daughter was alarmed. When sheenquired with the French Embassy, she was informed that herfather had been admitted into the Mental Health Institute,Chennai. It came as a rude shock to the petitioner since herfather was not a mentally ill person. Therefore, she came toChennai to take her father back. She made a request to thehospital authorities to discharge her father, but they refused todo so. Her complaint was that her father, was illegally kept inthe custody of the hospital authorities. Therefore, she filedthis habeas corpus petition.3. On 21.7.2008, this Court passed an order in this petitionand the relevant portions of the said order are extracted below,since we feel it is necessary :"This habeas corpus petition portrays a sad stateof affair in handling a foreign national by name RogerVandenbyvanghe, aged 61 years, who could not havedreamt when he came to India and landed during January,2008 that his life is going to be miserable at thehands of the police.... https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ On 9.7.2008, the Inspector of Police, KottarPolice Station surrounded 50 male persons and theInspector of Police, Nesamony Nagar Police Stationsurrounded 45 male persons as well as 20 female personstotalling 115 persons and resorted to invoke theprovisions of Section 23 of the Mental Health Act, 1987and a case in Cr.No.800 of 2008 was registered. Theymade all of them appear before a team of doctorsconsisting of Dr.Y.Arul Prakash, Assistant Surgeon,Government Medical College & Hospital, Nagercoil andDr.P.Natarajan, Tutor in Psychiatry, KanyakumariGovernment Medical College & Hospital, Nagercoil atAsaripallam on the same day. The French national inquestion was one among the 115 persons who was producedbefore the above team of doctors and was certified tobe suffering from Bipolar disorder mania and acertificate to this effect was issued by the team ofdoctors. Likewise, similar certificates were alsoissued in respect of the remaining 114 persons as well.On the strength of the above certificates, theInspectors of Police of Kottar & Nesamony Nagar PoliceStations made applications before the learned JudicialMagistrate No.II in-charge, Nagercoil, KanyakumariDistrict to pass reception orders authorising thedetention of the French national and other 114 personsas in-patients in the Institute of Mental Health,Kilpauk, Chennai. The said applications were orderedagain on the very same day and the reception orderswere also served in Form-5. Based on the said receptionorders, all 115 persons were brought to Chennai andwere admitted in the Institute of Mental Health,Kilpauk, Chennai for further treatment. ...They were brought to Chennai and were admitted inthe Institute of Mental Health. The detenu was put onobservation for a period of ten days. Ultimately, theInstitute of Mental Health found that Mr.RogerVandenbyvanghe does not exhibit any abnormality orpsychopathology during the entire period of ten daysobservation and the observation report of the Instituteof Mental Health, Chennai-10 dated 19.7.2008 reads asunder:-"Name Mr.Roger Vawdew Vaughe Age 60 Sex Male IP No.2132/2008 DOA 10.7.2008Mr.Roger Vawdew Vaughe 60 years old male wasadmitted in Institute of Mental Health, Chennai- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 10 along with the group of totally 115 personsthrough reception order issued by the JudicialMagistrate II, Nagercoil I/c, KanyakumariDistrict on 10.7.2008. On admission, Mr. RogerVawdew Vaughe was unclean, untidy, and having aninfected ulcer on the outer aspect of the leftforearm. Mr. Roger Vandew Vaughe has been underobservation for the past 10 days. DetailedPhysically examination, mental statusexamination, blood investigation andpsychological testing was carried out. During hisstay in the last 10 days Mr. Roger Vawdew Vaugheis behaving well, and he has proper sleep andeats sufficiently.Based on the ward behaviour, physical andmental status examination and investigations, itis opined that Mr. Roger Vawdew Vaughe does notexhibit any abnormality or psychopathology duringthis period of observation."The manner in which this foreign national had been treated by thepolice is really disturbing. It is difficult to understand howa prima facie satisfaction could be arrived at by the officers inrespect of 115 persons en masse at the same time :"This exposes the psycho-fever of the police toproceed against those who are wandering in the streetsto be treated as mentally ill persons disregard oftheir actual physical and mental condition. We mustexpress our total dissatisfaction over the way by whichthe entire matter had been handled not only by thepolice, but also at the level of the doctors and thelearned Judicial Magistrate as well." (vide order dated 21.7.2008)The approach of the doctors who were called upon to certifywhether these 115 persons deserve to be detained is equallyinexplicable :"When 115 persons were surrounded by the policeand were produced enmasse to a team of doctors, it ishard to believe whether the doctors have dischargedtheir noble duty by examining all the 115 personsindividually and arrived at the conclusion that theyare mentally ill persons to be dealt under theprovisions of the Mental Health Act. The examinationof all the 115 persons and to certify them to bementally ill persons at a stretch and by issuing aprinted form of certificate is either humanlyimpossible or would be the result of callousness shownagainst those persons by the doctors."(vide order dated 21.7.2008) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The reception orders were passed by the learned JudicialMagistrate en masse too :"On perusal of the records, it is seen that theMagistrate before whom all the 115 persons wereproduced, at a single stretch, has exercised the powerunder Section 24 and issued the reception orders. Thesatisfaction of the Magistrate, in our view, is onlymechanical and she has not properly applied herjudicial mind to the provisions of the Act."(vide order dated 21.7.2008)In view of the prima facie opinion arrived at with regard tothese 115 persons, directions were issued to the Director,Institute of Mental Health, Kilpauk, Chennai to submit a detailedreport regarding them.4. The Additional Public Prosecutor produced the statusreport filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil.According to this, several representations had been received fromvarious social organisations that more than 100 mentally illpersons were wandering in Nagercoil and that their condition waspitiable. Therefore, the District Administration took jointaction to produce them before the Judicial Magistrate's Court asper law. It appears that cases were registered based on therepresentations of the social organisations in Crime No.800 of2008 under Section 23(3) of the Mental Health Act, 1982 by theKottar Police Station against 50 male mentally ill persons; inCrime No.405 of 2008 under the same section on the file of theNesamony Nagar Police Station against 45 mentally ill persons;and in Crime No.18 of 2008 under the same section on the file ofthe All Women Police Station against 20 female mentally illpersons. The District Administration, therefore, apparently hadmade arrangements to trim their hair and give them bath and alsoto provide them new clothes. 125 persons were caught and producedfor medical examination based on the order of the JudicialMagistrate. According to the status report, 12 doctors fromKanyakumari Medical College comprising a team evaluated thesementally ill persons and rejected 10 persons as beggars andcertified the remaining 115 persons as suffering from mentalillness. The status report records that the doctors had to workovertime since they had to examine a large number of persons. Itis only after observing the due process of law that they had beentransferred to the Institute of Mental Health, Kilpauk, Chennai.According to the status report, the petitioner's father wasdiagnosed as suffering from Bipolar Disorder Mania. He hadescaped from the ward twice and thereafter, he was asserted formental illness. According to the status report, the said personwas inadequately dressed, shabby, talking irrelevantly and was in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ an abnormal, elevated state of mind with absence of insight.5. It was repeatedly urged by the learned Additional PublicProsecutor that the reception orders were passed only after dueexamination of the persons. 6. We are not able to accept this submission. Strictlyspeaking, when the petitioner's father was restored to her, nofurther orders were necessary. But, we felt that the treatmentof mentally ill persons by the police, doctors and court leftmuch to be desired. That is why the medical report was calledfor from the Isstitute of Mental health at Chennai.As a sample,we will take the case of the petitioner's father itself.According to the police status report, he was admitted by oneManikandan, Director of a Non Governmental Organisation on27.5.2008. He absconded, was again admitted by the same personand again he absconded, but subsequently the diagnosis was madethat he was suffering from bipolar disorder mania as seen aboveon 27.6.2008. The medical record of the petitioner's father hadbeen produced and the observation report made on admission by theCivil Assistant Surgeon at the Institute of Mental Health,Chennai would show that the petitioner's father was unclean,untidy and having an infected ulcer on his left forearm. Thedoctor certified that a detailed physical examination, mentalstatus examination, blood investigation and psychological testingof the said person had been carried out and he was behaving well,"he has proper sleep and eats sufficiently". Based on the wardbehaviour, physical and mental status examination andinvestigations, the doctor at the Institute of Mental Health,Chennai certified that the petitioner's father does not exhibitany abnormality or psychopathology during this period ofobservation. The psychological report shows that a psycho-diagnostic assessment was made and he talked relevantly andcoherently. His attention could be aroused and sustained andthere was no evidence of psychosis. Therefore, it is evidentthat the original assessment diagnosing the petitioner's fatherwith Bipolar Disorder Mania is not supported by the subsequentassessment made. We are not giving any finding on theprofessional capacity of the doctors at Kanyakumari who diagnosedthe petitioner's father as being mentally ill. But, we cannotignore the manner in which it was done. 125 persons were examinedvirtually on a single day and therefore, the diagnosis was notthe result of a proper psycho-assessment. The reception orderpassed on such an assessment cannot be a valid one.7. The Director of the Institute of Mental Health waspresent in Court on one of the days of hearing and we requestedhim to furnish information with regard to the number of daystaken by the team at the Institute for assessing the mental https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ capacities of the 115 persons who were sent to them and thereport filed by him reads as follows :"Submitted by Dr. R. Sathianathan, Director, TheInstitute of Mental Health, Chennai-10.With reference to the information sought by theHonourable High Court BenchA total number of 115 persons (95 males & 20females) were admitted at the Institute of MentalHealth on 10th July, 2008 though the Reception Orderfrom The Honourable Judicial Magistrate No.II i/c.,Nagercoil – Kanyakumari District, under Section 23, 24of Mental Health Act, 1987.At the Institute of Mental Health, a team wasconstituted comprising of 10 Psychiatrists, 2Psychologists, 6 Social Workers, 6 Staff Nurses andother Para Medical Staff. The team identified thereferred persons based on their identification marks asalso examined and screened for physical illnesses suchas hypertension, cellulites, ulcers, fractures, leprosyetc.On the subsequent day, a detailed laboratoryinvestigation like blood test, X-ray, ECG, HIVScreening, were carried out. Persons with physicalillnesses were referred to other hospitals forappropriate treatment.Simultaneously a detailed Mental StatusExamination was carried out over a period of 10 days.These persons were given customized care, followingwhich their personal details were solicited. With theinformation sought, few of the person's relatives werecontacted by the social workers.Out of the 115 persons admitted, a French Nationalwas discharged as per the instructions of theHonourable High Court. Another 7 persons were (6 males& 1 female) found to have no gross psychopathologyduring the observation period. These seven personswere further observed for 10 more days for their wardbehaviour and subsequently psychological assessmentswere done. After an intensive observation andinvestigation these 7 persons were certified that theydid not have any abnormality. The efforts are beingtaken to reintegrate them back to community through theN.G.O's. The rest of the 107 persons are still underobservation and treatment. All the 114 person wereplaced before the Vistors Committee on 30th July, 2008. Dr. R. Sathianathan, 16 August, 2008." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Therefore, over a span of ten days, the persons were kept underobservation and a mental status examination was done and out ofthese 115 persons, seven were certified as not having anyabnormality and other 107 persons are still under observation.The Director IMH Chennai, told us that a minimum period of 10days is required to make a mental status examination.8. Now, we come to the question that disturbs us. It isseen from the records produced before us that the DistrictCollector, Nagercoil had called for a meeting when it was broughtto her notice that mentally affected persons are seen in railwaystations and bus stands and that proper reception orders are tobe obtained. At the meeting, a plan was drawn up :"In the meeting, it was unanimously resolved tosend the Mentally affected persons who are seen inNagercoil Town and Kanyakumari Township to theInstitute of Mental Health, Ayanavaram, Chennai in asafety manner. At the first instance, necessary stepswould be initiated to identify the Mentally affectedpersons so as to hand over to the Government Instituteof Mental Health, Chennai, for which, the followingarrangements to be made by the Officers concerned.It was further planned to commence this exerciseby 9th itself and before this end of next week, all theidentified patients should be sent to the Institute bygetting proper Reception Order from the JudicialMagistrate, as required by the Institute."On 9.7.2008, learned Judicial Magistrate No.II had sent all the115 persons for assessment of their mental condition as perSection 24 of the Mental Health Act. On 10.7.2008, receptionorders had been issued. Though it was submitted by the learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor that there was no short-circuitingin the process of assessment of the mental condition and that ateam of doctors worked, and that all the mentally ill personswere distributed amongst the team and evaluation was doneproperly, the facts indicate the contrary. We find that theevaluation report had been signed only by two doctors. For that,some explanation is given, which were are not willing to accept.It is clear that 115 persons were treated as mere chattels,rounded up, their hair trimmed, given a bath, sent to doctors,who "duly certified them as mentally ill" and reception ordershad been issued. 9. We are also not happy about the manner in which receptionorders had been issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate. Ofcourse, we are not here to examine the correctness of thereception orders, that falls beyond the scope of this habeascorpus petition. But, it is apparent the learned JudicialMagistrate not have been really "satisfied" that reception orders https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ought to be issued in respect of these 115 persons? Mentally illpersons are entitled to the right of life with dignity and theyhave the Fundamental Rights same as others. Junior levelofficers of the judiciary are perhaps under the misapprehensionthat in their Courts, procedural law alone has to be followed.They should change their mindsets. They are equally charged withthe obligation of protecting the fundamental rights of thelitigants. The work they do day after day cannot run afoul ofthe Constitutional Obligations. 10. We are concerned with the manner in which the police,the doctors and the learned judicial magistrate have dealt withthis group which, on the face of it, is a group without power;but nonetheless a group of persons entitled to protection ofhuman rights. Their autonomy is violated and they have beentreated as though they have no rights of their own."By rights, I mean those fundamental expectationsthat govern the relationship between individuals andsocieties. In modern, western societies, rights ofindividuals are conceptualised as protections againstarbitrary so that individuals retain personal choiceand decision-making....The right of the individual to be free fromarbitrary exercise of state power is perhaps the keydifference between the democratic nations of the worldand those that operate under other systems. Theircross-cultural value is recognized by documents such asthe Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which holdthat all adults, anywhere in the world, should be freeto make basic life choices for themselves.Involuntary commitment, forced treatment, andpsychiatric control over decision-making are really notcomplicated issues, despite the efforts to make themseem so. The fundamental question is this: why do wetake one group of people, those labelled "mentallyill", and deny them basic rights?The ethical system (if I can call it that) thatdrives the involuntary treatment system is paternalism,the idea that one group (the one in power, not oddly)knows what is best for another group (which lackspower). The history of civilisation is in part, thestruggle against paternalism and for self-determination. People in power are always saying thatthey know what is best for those they rule over, evenif those poor unfortunate individuals think they knowbest what they want. The powerful seldom cast their ownmotives in anything but benevolent terms. Rulers andslave masters like to think (or pretend) that their https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ subjects love them and are grateful to them oftenhaving to ignore much evidence to the contrary. Thestruggle for freedom has always been seen by thepowerful as a denial of the obvious truth of thesuperiority of the rulers. It is clear that we cannot leave our fate in thehands of lawyers, judges, and psychiatrists, who seemquite willing to sacrifice our freedom in the name ofbenevolent paternalism.Not too many years ago, former patients were notinvited to speak at conferences like these. Today, ourparticipation is welcomed, our opinions are solicited,our voices being heard. But the continued existence ofinvoluntary commitment, of prison-like mentalinstitutions, of discrimination and seggregation, showshow far we still have to go to reach our goals: fullcitizenship, equality, and human dignity".111. In his Article2, Kevin Wadzuk of the American University,Washington DC writes :"The United States Constitution is the documentupon which the country was founded. It outlines thepowers and procedures of the government as well as itsduties to protect personal liberties. There is nomention in the Constitution that the rights guaranteedto citizens are limited to those citizens who are “ofsound mind....After consideration of the abuses of the “mentallyill,” one might question the rationale of society,through its representatives, in these actions. ThomasSzasz (1963) suggests that social disturbance is theissue resolved by this process. If a person assertsideas, beliefs, or sensations that threaten society, asocial disturbance is created. Thus, the deprivation ofliberty of a person for mental health reasons is basedon the person’s thoughts and behavior, not criminalactions. This is an important distinction to makebecause it leads to the violation of one the basicconstitutional rights.Perhaps what is more disturbing is that thesepersons are not criminals; they are rejects fromsociety. Society has deemed the behaviors of thesepeople as unacceptable and developed a process toremove them from sight and consideration. However,these persons do not disappear; they spend years ofthere lives in mental institutions, such as St.1Judi Chamberlin on "Citizenship Rights and Psychiatric Disability"at the World Mental Health DayConference in Stockholm, Sweden – October 10, 19962 "Violations of the Rights of the Mentally Ill in the District of Columbia" https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Elizabeth’s Hospital. It is extremely saddening anddistinctly outrageous that a minority group could be soblatantly abused."12. With these voices in the background, we go to the Act.Section 24 of the Mental Health Act reads as follows :"24. Procedure on production of mentally illperson.– (1) If a person is produced before aMagistrate under sub-section (3) of section 23, and, ifin his opinion, there are sufficient grounds forproceeding further, the Magistrate shall-(a) examine the person to assess his capacity tounderstand,(b) cause him to be examined by a medical officer,and(c) make such inquiries in relation to such personas he may deem necessary.(2) After the completion of the proceedings undersub-section (1), the Magistrate may pass a receptionorder authorising the detention of the said as aninpatient in a psychiatric hospital or psychiatricnursing home,- (a) if the medical officer certifies suchperson to be a mentally ill person, and(b) if the Magistrate is satisfied that thesaid person is a mentally ill person and that in theinterest of the health and personal safety of thatperson or for the protection of others, it is necessaryto pass such order:Provided that if any relative or friend of thementally ill person desires that the mentally illperson be sent to any particular licensed psychiatrichospital or psychiatric nursing home for treatmenttherein and undertakes in writing to the satisfactionof the Magistrate to pay the cost of maintenance of thementally ill person in such hospital or nursing home,the magistrate shall, if the medical officer in chargeof such hospital or nursing home consents, make areception order for the admission of the mentally illperson into that hospital or nursing home and detentiontherein: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Provided further that if any relative or friend ofthe mentally ill person enters into a bond, with orwithout sureties for such amount as the Magistrate maydetermine, undertaking that such mentally ill personwill be properly taken care of and shall be preventedfrom doing any injury to himself or to others, theMagistrate may, instead of making a reception order,hand him over to the care of such relative or friend."The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Mental Health Actshows the transformation in the attitude of people when comparedto the Act that was repealed, namely the Lunacy Act. Even thenomenclature given to the mental condition, to which the Act isaddressed, has undergone a sea change. Where originally the wordused was "lunacy", now the words used are "mental health".13. It is evident that on the part of Judicial MagistrateNo.II, Nagercoil, he has not applied his mind to examine thepersons produced before him under Section 24 of the Mental HealthAct, 1987, but had mechanically passed the reception orders. Aswe have already observed our unhappiness about the manner inwhich the 115 persons were produced by the police before theJudicial Magistrate No: II, Nagercoil at Kanyakumari District,and the disposal of those persons in granting the receptionorders by the learned Judicial Magistrate, it has becomenecessary for us to give suitable directions to the executiveauthorities concerned as well as the Judicial Magistrates, whohave to deal with the persons who are supposed to be mentallyill, so that they may act in accordance with The Mental HealthAct, 1987 and to follow the guidelines issued by this Court aswell as the Supreme Court in the various pronouncements. TheSupreme Court had bestowed its hope on judicial Magistratesrather than the executive Magistrates to pass reception orders asper provisions of The Mental Health Act, 1987.14. Mentally ill persons are not criminals, they have notcommitted any offence. Then, is it necessary that for theirprotection, action should commence with a First InformationReport? The law makers should seriously consider an alternativeprocedure by which reception orders can be issued without a"police complaint".15. Justice Claire L'Heureux Dube, Supreme Court of Canada(Retired) would say that one must walk in the person's shoes ifone has to understand where a person who complains of violationof rights comes from. to quote :"It is important to walk a mile in anotherperson's shoes. As it is possible to grow up in thesame family, neighbourhood, school..... And yet, have https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ totally different experiences depending on whether youare a man or a woman. The way to resolve differencestherefore is not to suppress those who are different,but to notice them and not try to see our reflection inthem." It would be better, in fact imperative, that the police, thedoctors and the judicial officers put themselves in the shoes ofthese marginalized groups of persons who are treated as if theyare non-persons before they deal with their rights. 16. Every person wandering on the street is not mentallyill. The police should not "round up" people as if they werestray cattle and deal with them as such. Each individual shouldbe dealt with as a separate case, he/she shall be treated as ahuman being with all the Constitutional rights. This will bepossible if the police/NGO or any other person bring up each caseindividually as and when it arises.17. The police need not wait to reach such a huge number inorder to produce such persons before the Judicial Magistrateconcerned. They shall act promptly as and when they happen to seean abandoned or destitute or mentally affected or suspected illpersons wandering in the public places. When such mentally illpersons are handled by the police, they are to be treated withhumanity and dignity and they should not be treated as chattel.The police officers who are actually executing the work of takingcognizance of the mentally ill persons who are roaming in thestreets and other public places shall deal with them as perSection 23 of the Mental Health Act, 1987.18. It is also apparent that the medical officers have notgiven the due care and caution before certifying a person asmentally ill. This has several serious legal consequences,depriving them of many rights. For example a mentally unsoundperson cannot contest an election. There are so manydisqualifications that attend a person with mental unsoundness.In this case, the petitioner's father has been certified assuffering from bipolar disorder without justification. He is ashealthy as the person who first examined him, as the certificatefrom the Institute of Mental Health, Chennai would show. Thedoctors cannot mindlessly certify a person as mentally ill. Ifthey need time for examination, they shall insist on that timebeing given. Importantly, a person does not deserve any lessattention than another merely because he/she is found on thestreet or is poor or is a beggar. The doctors shall also attendimmediately to any physical injury that is found on the saidperson. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

19. The trust and hope laid on the Judicial Magistrates inSheela Barse vs. Union of India, (1993) 4 S.C.C. 204 should havebeen fulfilled by the Judicial Magistrates by observing andenforcing the provisions of the Mental Health Act, 1987, strictlywhen the suspected mentally ill persons are produced before them.The Judicial Magistrates concerned should have examined thepersons to assess their capacity to understand and cause him tobe examined by the Medical Officer and to make such enquiries inrelation to such person whenever necessary. It is humanlyimpossible to "examine" 115 persons, as has been done in thiscase. Any deviation of Section 24 of the Act is not only harmfulto the persons concerned but will also affect the society atlarge. Under these circumstances, the Judicial Magistrates ofthis State of Tamil Nadu as well as the State of Puducherry areto be instructed that they should follow the procedures mentionedin Section 24 of the Mental Health Act, 1897 in letter and spiritand to see that justice is done to the persons concerned. Thementally ill persons shall not be made to wait unduly long beforereception orders are issued. The Magistrates shall remember thetrust and faith reposed on them while they discharge their dutyunder this Act. What happened in this case must not ever recur.20. By an order dated 21.07.2008, this Court had set atliberty the detenu Mr. Roger Vandenbyvanghe, already, andtherefore, this habeas corpus petition is disposed of with theaforesaid directions.21. The Registry is directed to circulate this order to allthe Judicial Magistrates concerned in Tamil Nadu and Puducherrythrough the Principal District Judge of the respective Districtsfor strict observance. The Registry shall also communicate thisorder to the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, and DirectorGeneral of Police, Puducherry, to circulate the instructions andobservations to all the police stations.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.ab https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.2. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai City, Chennai. 3.Institute of Mental Health,Rep. by its Director,Kilpauk, Chennai-10.4.The Inspector of Police,Kottur Police Station.5.Inspector of Police,Nesamony Nagar Police Station,Kanyakumari District atNagercoil.6. The Director General of PoliceTamilnadu7. The Director General of PolicePuducherry8. The Section OfficerB Section,High Court, Chennai (Direction to circulated this order to all the JudicialMagistrate Concerned in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry the Prl.District Judge of the respective Districts for strict observance)H.C.P. No.1041 of 2008GV (CO)kk 7/10