Uma Manickam v. The Inspector of Police V-1

2.1. The facts, so far as relevant, leading to the filing of thepresent petition are as under: The petitioner, claiming herself as a neighbour of the detenu –Deenadayalan has filed this habeas corpus petition seeking a writ ofhabeas corpus to direct the respondents to produce Deenadayalan, Son ofBalu Reddiar, aged about 54 years, now under illegal custody of therespondents before this Court and set him at liberty. It is alleged thatthe detenu is kept under the illegal detention, under the guise of areception order dated 24.8.2007 said to have been passed by the learnedJudicial Magistrate, Tambaram, exercising the power conferred underSections 22 and 24 of the Mental Health Act, at the instance of the thirdrespondent herein, who is nonetheless the brother-in-law of the detenu(detenu's sister's husband) and the brother of the fourth respondent, asitting M.L.A. of Tambaram Assembly Constituency.2.2. In fact, the very same petitioner, on an earlier occasion,complaining that the said Deenadayalan was under the illegal detention ofthe third respondent herein moved H.C.P. No.1114 of 2007 seekingproduction of the detenu before this Court and to set the detenu atliberty. The third respondent herein contested the said H.C.P.No.1114 of2007 submitting that the detenu was mentally retrenched and he wasundergoing treatment in the Institute of Mental Health, Kilpauk. 2.3. After hearing all the parties, this Court, by order dated9.8.2007 disposed of the said H.C.P.No.1114 of 2007, as under:"4. Some medical prescriptions were produced before us. Weourselves examined the detenu. The detenu has stated that hehas been taken forcibly by four persons and subsequently, thesecond respondent had joined them. The detenu has furtherstated that even though, he is being treated in someHospital, he has been treated only as an out patient and hedoes not have any mental derangement. We put to him generalquestions, for which, he answered and he appears to be anormal person. The detenu has further stated that he wouldnot like to stay with the second respondent and he would liketo stay in his own house available at Villivakkam. Thedetenu is set at liberty and he is free to stay, wherever helikes."2.4. On 10.8.2007, the learned counsel who appeared for the petitionerin H.C.P.No.1114 of 2007, however, requested the Court to post the matterfor being mentioned complaining that immediately after the detenu was setat liberty on 9.8.2007, on the same day evening, he was again taken by andkept under the illegal custody of the third respondent and his wife, whois nonetheless the sister of the detenu. 2.5. The matter was posted on 14.8.2007, and was adjourned to17.8.2007 and then to 18.8.2007 at the request of the learned AdditionalPublic Prosecutor. On 18.8.2007, as it was reported by the learned https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Additional Public Prosecutor that he was not able to obtain all necessaryinstructions, the H.C.P.No.1114 of 2007 was closed as under:" This Habeas Corpus petition had been disposed of by anorder dated 9.8.2007. Thereafter, the matter was listed underthe heading "for being mentioned" as the learned counsel forthe petitioner stated before Court that the detenu,Deenadayalan was not available in his house at Villivakam.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor had been requested toobtain instructions on this matter. Learned AdditionalPublic Prosecutor is not able to obtain all necessaryinstructions. Be that as it may, no further order isrequired to be passed in this habeas corpus petition. It isopen to the petitioner or any other interested person to seekappropriate remedy." 2.6. As the whereabouts of the detenu were still unknown, thepetitioner moved the present H.C.P.No.1334 of 2007.3.1. When the matter came before this Court on 13.9.2007 foradmission, the following order was passed:"Even though it is reported that the detenu, viz.,Deenadayalan, has been admitted as an in-patient(I.P.No.2144, Ward No.6) in Mental Health Centre, Kilpauk,in view of the earlier order passed by a Division Bench ofthis Court, dated 9.8.2007 made in H.C.P.No.1114 of 2007,wherein it was found that the detenu appeared to be a normalperson, we direct the respondent police to produce thedetenu, after getting necessary orders from the ResidentMedical Officer, Mental Health Centre, Kilpauk, before thisCourt by tomorrow (14.9.2007) at 10.30 a.m. 2. In the meanwhile, Registry is directed to call for adetailed report from the learned Principal District Judge,Chengalpet, with reference to an order passed by the JudicialMagistrate, Tambaram, exercising the powers contemplatedunder Section 22 and 24 of the Mental Health Act, referringthe detenu, viz., Deenadayalan, to the Mental Health Centre,Kilpauk. The entire report along with the medical report fromthe Resident Medical Officer, Mental Health Centre, Kilpauk,shall be placed before this Court by tomorrow (14.9.2007) at10.30 a.m."3.2. When the matter came up for further arguments today (14.9.2007),the Registrar (Judicial) produced a report dated 13.9.2007 from thelearned Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu enclosing a report from thelearned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram dated 13.9.2007.3.3. Even though the learned Additional Public Prosecutor could notget necessary instructions from the respondents/ Police on an earlieroccasion, when a serious complaint was made that the detenu was under https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ illegal custody of the third respondent, within 24 hours, the detenu wasproduced before us this morning from the Institute of Mental Health,Kilpauk supported with a reception order dated 24.8.2007 passed by thelearned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram. He also produced an ObservationReport from the Director-Incharge of the Institute of Mental Health,Kilpauk. 3.4. The relevant portions of the report of the learned JudicialMagistrate dated 13.9.2007, report of the learned Principal DistrictJudge, Chengalpattu dated 13.9.2007, and the Observation Report dated14.9.2007 of the Director-Incharge, Institute of Mental Health, Kilpauk,read as under:(i) Report of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram, dated 13.9.2007"... The above said petitioner Mr.Ravikumar filed anaffidavit stating that Mr.Deenadayalan, S/o.Balu Reddy is hisuncle and his age about 60 years and suffering from Mentalillness for the past few years, he was also given medicaltreatment. In spite of the same, he was not completely curedand still he is suffering from mental illness. Therefore, hehas to be admitted in the Mental Hospital for proper care andmedical treatment or otherwise his health condition willbecome worse. Further the above said person attempted tocommit suicide and throws dangerous weapons on seeing themand he also used to attack them without knowing what he wasdoing. Further he used to shout against persons and used tospit upon them. He also attempts to break the tube lightsand bulbs and used to catch hold of the blouse of the ladies.Further he used to bring some garbage on collection from roadside and use to spread them in the house which causes foulsmell and affect the normal life of the inmates. Therefore,he requested to pass orders to admit the insane personDeenadayalan in the Government Institute of Mental Health andHospital at Kilpauk, Chennai-10. The petitioner Ravikumarhas sworn the affidavit as stated supra. In support of hispetition, he files one Doctor's recommendation letter givenby one Dr.Rameshkumar, M.B.B.S. F.A.G.E. Of Balaji Clini,No.110/A, N.M.K.Street, Ayanavaram, Chennai-23. Again, Ihave taken up the matter on 24.8.2007, Mr.Deenadayalan wasalso present in the court. I further submit that in the opencourt, I invited the said Deenadayalan nearby the dias, I putseveral questions to satisfy myself. Very often, he used tosit on the floor and complained that he could not able tostand. I further submit that more over, he has answered tothe questions in the most irrelevant manner. He did notrealise when saliva was oozing out from his mouth. Thepetitioner Ravikumar stated that the said Deenadayalan, ishis uncle. I further submit that when I showed thepetitioner to the said Deenadayalan and asked him who was he? https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ He said, I do not know who is he. Upon satisfied the answersgiven in such a way by Mr.Deenadayalan, I prepared a letterto the Director, the Institute of Mental Health, Kilpauk,Chennai-10, vide D.No.1551/07, dated 24.8.2007. Based onwhich, I further submit that the Tambaram Police hasregistered a case u/s.23 and 27 of the Mental Health Act,1987 in Cr.No.2388/07 against Mr.Deenadayalan received bythis Court on 25.8.2007 at 1.30 p.m. The medical custody foran observation of Mr.Deenadayalan as an inpatient given for aperiod of 30 days which has been passed for the interest ofHealth and the person concerned."(emphasis supplied)(ii) Report of the learned Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu, dated13.9.2007:"... Upon satisfying himself the Judicial Magistrate,Tambaram has prepared a reception order u/s.22, 24 read with25, 28, 29 of Mental Health Act, 1987 addressed to theDirector, Institute of Mental Health, Kilpauk, Chennai-10 inD.No.1551/2007, dated 24.8.2007 and the said Deenadayalan wasdetained in the said Institute for a period of 30 days by theJudicial Magistrate, Tambaram. The Judicial Magistrate,Tambaram has also stated that based on that detention orderthe Tambaram Police has registered a case under Sec.23 and 27of Mental Health Act, 1987 in Crime No.2388/2007 against thesaid Deenadayalan which was received in his court on25.8.2007 at 1.30 p.m. But the said detenu should have beendetained for 10 days only under Section 28 of Mental HealthAct, 1987 at a time and this procedure has not been followedby the Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram."(emphasis supplied)(iii) Observation Report dated 14.9.2007: "As per the reception order issued in the Court ofJudicial Magistrate, Tambaram, Chennai, Mr.Deenadayalanwas admitted on 24.8.2007. He was brought by Headconstable Mr.Subramaniam (H.C.22961) and S.I. of TambaramPolice Station. He was accompanied by his brother in lawMr.Ravikumar.On the day of admission he was clean and tidy. Hecomprehended our questions and gave personal informationand address. There were no perceptual or thoughtdisturbances. He was found to be exhibiting spontaneousand excessive talk. He has no insight about hiscondition. He has eczema of both legs (skin condition)for which he is being given treatment by experts. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ He was placed before admission committee on31.8.2007.Provisional diagnosis of bipolar affective disorder(mania) was entertained.Currently Mr.Deenadayalan is under observation andunder going psychological investigations and testings."(emphasis supplied)3.5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also produced thereception order dated 24.8.2007 issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate,Tambaram, which reads as under:"IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TAMBARAMRECEPTION ORDER FOR CONSERVATION OF A MENTALLY ILL PERSON(Issued u/s.22 and 24 r/w section 25 and 28 and 29 of the MentalHealth Act, 1987)1) It is reported that a male Deenadayalan Age: 60 S/o.BaluReddy N. 3/7, Srinivasan Street, West Tambaram, Chennai-45a) is a mentally ill patientb) is within the jurisdictional limit of the police stationattached with this Court (Cr.No.2388/07 u/s.23,27 of MentalHealth Act of Tambaram P.S.)c) is reported to be residing within the local limits of yourjurisdiction.2) He is a wandering mentally ill-patient and having no relativeto give protection and safety to him.3) I have enquired and examined him personally. I have thefollowing reason to belief that the above said patient is notunder proper care and control.4) I reasonably believe that there is no person legally bound tomaintain him.5) I the undersigned Thiru S.Murugesan, M.Sc., B.L., Judicialmagistrate, Tambaram specially empowered by the government todetain him in your psychiatric hospital for treatment as an inpatient.6) Therefore, you are hereby authorised to receive the detentionof the alleged mentally ill person under proper medical custody https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in an observation ward of your hospital as an inpatient for aperiod of 30 days for enabling any medical officer to determinewhether a medical certificate in respect of that allegedmentally ill person can properly be given under clause (a) ofsub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Mental Health Act, 1987.7) This is an interim order which has been passed in theinterests of the health and personal that person or for theprotection of there.8) This order shall be subject to any variation from time totime revocation at any time.Sd/-Judicial MagistrateTambaramPlace: TambaramDate : 24.8.07To:The DirectorThe Institute of Mental HealthKilpauk, Chennai-10."3.6. It is stated in the report dated 13.9.2007 submitted by thelearned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram that the detenu very often used tosit on the floor and complain that he was unable to stand; that saliva wasoozing out from his mouth unknowingly; and that he was answering to thequestions in an irrelevant manner on 24.8.2007. 3.7. However, we find from the Observation Report dated 14.9.2007 ofthe Director Incharge, Institute of Mental Health, Kilpauk that on thedate of admission, viz., on 24.8.2007, when the detenu was brought by theHead Constable-Subramanian (H.C.22961) and Sub Inspector of TambaramPolice Station – Mr.Durai, accompanied by his brother-in-law, the thirdrespondent herein; the detenu was clean and tidy; he comprehended thequestions put forth by the Doctors; gave personal information and address;and there were no perceptual or thought disturbances; even though he wasfound to be exhibiting spontaneous and excessive talk, he had no insightabout his condition; he had only eczema on both legs (skin condition) forwhich he was being given treatment by experts. 3.8. Even though, we have not summoned any Doctor from the Instituteof Mental Health, Kilpauk, Dr.Anand Pratap, who is Ward Incharge appearedbefore this Court voluntarily and stated that the detenu was improving inmental condition. We are unable to understand under what circumstances orbackground Dr.Anand Pratap has chosen to make the above statement. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.9. From the clinical record of the detenu, observation report, aswell as the report of the learned Principal District Judge, Chengalpattuand the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram, and the Reception Order, itis apparent that the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram, by passing thereception order dated 24.8.2007 directing the Director of Institute ofMental Health, Kilpauk to detain the alleged mentally ill person for aperiod of 30 days in paragraph (6) of the order, committed a serious errorin law, as, Section 28(2) of the Act contemplates that the Magistrate may,from time to time, for the purpose mentioned in sub-section (1), by orderin writing, authorise such further detention of the alleged mentally illperson for periods not exceeding ten days at a time. 3.10. That apart, as per the Observation Report and the ClinicalRecord, there is no need to admit the detenu as an inpatient in theInstitute of Mental Health, Kilpauk by the Doctor concerned on 24.8.2007. 3.11. Under such circumstances, we felt that before arriving at anyfinding, it is apt to call for the original records from the learnedJudicial Magistrate, Tambaram as well as the original records relating toCrime No.2388 of 2007 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Tambaram andthe entire medical records relating to the detenu from the Institute ofMental Health, Kilpauk and the matter was taken up at 2.30 pm.4.1. In view of the observation of the earlier Division Bench in theorder dated 9.8.2007 made in H.C.P.No.1114 of 2007 that the detenuappeared to be a normal person, at 2.30 p.m., we put several questions tothe detenu in the open court and he was answering all the questionsclearly and cogently without any dilemma whatsoever. 4.2. The detenu thus stated that immediately after setting him atliberty on 9.8.2007 pursuant to the order of the Division Bench of thisCourt dated 9.8.2007 made in H.C.P.No.1114 of 2007, he was taken oncustody by the third respondent and his wife, and was left at MadambakkamOrphanage having telephone number 22781060. He was then taken to S-16Police Station by the third respondent and from there he was producedbefore the Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram on 24.8.2007 by the thirdrespondent and from there he was taken to Institute of Mental Health atKilpauk and today, the first respondent/Police produced him before thisCourt.4.3. As per the records produced from the learned Judicial Magistrate,Tambaram, it is evident that the petition under Sections 23 and 27 of theAct was filed by the third respondent herein. The petition was moved byone Mr.M.Ramesh, counsel on behalf of the third respondent. The petitionwas prepared on 20.8.2007, and thereafter a correction was made to thedate as 22.8.2007 and filed on 22.8.2007. Notice was ordered on 22.8.2007returnable by 24.8.2007. On 24.8.2007, the learned Additional Public https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Prosecutor made the following endorsement:"Perused the affidavit and petition. If the alleged personappears to be lunatic the learned Magistrate can directlypass a order to Home to take him for treatment to verify thesame put some common questions to said lunatic person. Ifdoubt arises send him for medical officer then pass suitableorder."4.4. It is apparent on the face of the record that the notice was notserved on the Director, Institute of Mental Health, Kilpauk, Chennai, eventhough he was made as a party respondent and notice was ordered to him on22.8.2007 returnable by 24.8.20075.1. Under the scheme of the Act, while Chapter IV – Part III(A)(Sections 20 to 22) prescribes the procedure to be followed for disposingan application for a reception order made by the Medical Officer in chargeof a psychiatric hospital or psychiatric nursing home, or by the husband,wife or any other relative of the mentally ill person, Part III(B)(Sections 23 to 25) of Chapter-IV deals with the procedure to be followedwhen a mentally ill person is produced by the Police concerned, Part III(C) (Sections 26 to 29) of Chapter-IV deals with the provisions regardingadmission and detention of certain mentally ill persons, and Part III(D)(Sections 30 to 36) of Chapter-IV deals with miscellaneous provisionsrelating to the procedure to the followed while passing reception ordersunder this Chapter. 5.2. For better appreciation of the statutory framework, it isapposite to refer Sections 20 to 30 of the Act, which read as under:"Section: 20 - Application for reception order: (1) An Application for a reception order may be made by - (a) the medical officer in charge of a psychiatric hospitalor psychiatric nursing home, or (b) by the husband, wife or any other relative of thementally ill person. (2) Where a medical officer in charge of a psychiatrichospital or psychiatric nursing home in which a mentally illperson is undergoing treatment under a temporary treatmentorder is satisfied that - (a) the mentally ill person is suffering from mental disorderof such a nature and degree that his treatment in thepsychiatric hospital or, as the case may be, psychiatric nursing home is required to be continuedfor more than six months, or (b) it is necessary in the interests of the health and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ personal safety of the mentally ill person or for theprotection of others that such person shall be detained in apsychiatric hospital or psychiatric nursing home, he may makean application to the Magistrate within the local limits ofwhose jurisdiction the psychiatric hospital or, as the casemay be, psychiatric nursing home is situated, for thedetention of such mentally ill person under a reception orderin such psychiatric hospital or psychiatric nursing home, asthe case may be. (3) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (5), the husbandor wife of a person who is alleged to be mentally ill or,where there is no husband or wife, or where the husband orwife is prevented by reason of any illness or absence fromIndia or otherwise from making the application, any otherrelative of such person may make an application to theMagistrate within the local limits of whose jurisdiction thesaid person ordinarily resides, for the detention of thealleged mentally ill person under a reception order in apsychiatric hospital or psychiatric nursing home. (4) Where the husband or wife of the alleged mentally illperson is not the applicant, the application shall containthe reasons for the application not being made by the husbandor wife and shall indicate the relationship of the applicantwith the alleged mentally ill person and the circumstancesunder which the application is being made. (5) No person, - (i) who is a minor, or (ii) who, within fourteen days before the date of theapplication, has not seen the alleged mentally ill person, shall make an application under this section. (6) Every application under sub-section (3) shall be made inthe prescribed form and shall be signed and verified in theprescribed manner and shall state whether any previousapplication had been made for inquiry into the mentalcondition of the alleged mentally ill person and shall beaccompanied by two medical certificates from two medicalpractitioners of whom one shall be a medical practitioner inthe service of Government. Section: 21 - Form and contents of medical certificates:Every medical certificate referred to in sub-section (6) ofsection 20 shall contain a statement. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (a) that each of the medical practitioners referred to inthat sub-section has independently examined the allegedmentally ill person and has formed his opinion on the basisof his own observations and from the particulars communicatedto him; and (b) that in the opinion of each such medical practitioner thealleged mentally ill person is suffering from mental disorderof such a nature and degree as to warrant the detention ofsuch person in a psychiatric hospital or psychiatric nursinghome and that such detention is necessary in the interests ofthe health and personal safety of that person or for theprotection of others. Section: 22 - Procedure upon application for reception order: (1) On receipt of an application under sub-section (2) ofsection 20, the Magistrate may make a reception order, if heis satisfied that - (i) the mentally ill person is suffering from mental disorderof such a nature and degree that it is necessary to detainhim in a psychiatric hospital or psychiatric nursing home fortreatment; or (ii) it is necessary in the interests of the health andpersonal safety of the mentally ill person or for theprotection of others that he should be so detained, and atemporary treatment order would not be adequate in thecircumstances of the case end it is necessary to make areception order. (2) On receipt of an application under sub-section (3) ofsection 20, the Magistrate shall consider the statements madein the application and the evidence of mental illness asdisclosed by the medical certificates. (3) If the Magistrate considers that there are sufficientgrounds for proceeding further, he shall personally examinethe alleged mentally ill person unless, for reasons to berecorded in writing, he thinks that it is not necessary orexpedient to do so. (4) If the Magistrate is satisfied that a reception order mayproperly be made forthwith, he may make such order, and ifthe Magistrate is not so satisfied, he shall fix a date forfurther consideration of the application and may make suchinquiries concerning the alleged mentally ill person as he https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ thinks fit. (5) The notice of the date fixed under sub-section (4) shallbe given to the applicant and to any other person to whom, inthe opinion of the Magistrate, such notice shall be given. (6) If the magistrate fixes a date under sub-section (4) forfurther consideration of the application, he may make suchorder as he thinks fit, for the proper care and custody ofthe alleged mentally ill person pending disposal of theapplication. (7) On the date fixed under sub-section (4), or on suchfurther date as may be fixed by the Magistrate, he shallproceed to consider the application in camera, in thepresence of – (i) the applicant; (ii) the alleged mentally ill person (unless the Magistratein his discretion otherwise directs); (iii) the person who may be appointed by the alleged mentallyill person to represent him; and (iv) such other person as the Magistrate thinks fit, and ifthe Magistrate is satisfied that the alleged mentally illperson, in relation to whom the application is made, is somentally ill that in the interests of the health and personalsafety of that person or for the protection of others it isnecessary to detain him in a psychiatric hospital orpsychiatric nursing home for treatment, he may pass areception order for that purpose and if he is not sosatisfied, he shall dismiss the application and any suchorder may provide for the payment of the cost of the inquiryby the applicant personally or from out of the estate of thementally ill person, as the Magistrate may deem appropriate. (8) If any application is dismissed under sub-section (7),the Magistrate shall record the reasons for such dismissaland a copy of the order shall be furnished to the applicant. Section: 23 - Powers and duties of police officers in respectof certain mentally ill persons:(1) Every Officer in charge of a police station,- (a) may take or cause to be taken into protection any personfound wandering at large within the limits of his stationwhom he has reason to believe to be so mentally ill as to beincapable of taking care of himself, and(b) shall take or cause to be taken into protection any https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ person within the limits of his station whom he has reason tobelieve to be dangerous by reason of mental illness. (2) No person taken into protection under sub-section(1)shall be detained by the police without being informed , assoon as may be, of the grounds for taking him into suchprotection, or where in the opinion of the officer taking theperson into protection, such person is not capable ofunderstanding those grounds, without his relatives orfriends, if any, being informed of such grounds. (3) Every person who is taken into protection and detainedunder this section shall be produced before the nearestMagistrate within a period of twenty four hours of taking himinto such protection excluding the time necessary for thejourney from the place where he was taken into suchprotection to the Court of the Magistrate and shall not bedetained beyond the said period without the authority of theMagistrate. Section: 24 - Procedure on production of mentally ill person: (1) If a person is produced before a Magistrate under sub-section(3) of section 23, and if, in his opinion, there aresufficient grounds for proceeding further, the Magistrateshall- (a)examine the person to assess his capacity to understand, (b)cause him to be examined by a medical officer, and (c)make such inquiries in relation to such person as he maydeem necessary. (2) After the completion of the proceedings under sub-section(1), the Magistrate may pass a reception order authorizingthe detention of the said person as an inpatient in apsychiatric hospital or psychiatric nursing home, - (a)if the medical officer certifies such person to be amentally ill person, and (b)if the Magistrate is satisfied that the said person is amentally ill person and that in the interests of the healthand personal safety of that person or for protection ofothers, it is necessary to pass such order. Provided that if any relative or friend of the mentally illperson desires that the mentally ill person be sent to anyparticular licensed psychiatric hospital or licensedpsychiatric nursing home for treatment therein and undertakes https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in writing to the satisfaction of the Magistrate to pay thecost of maintenance of the mentally ill person in suchhospital or nursing home, the Magistrate shall, if themedical officer in charge of such hospital or nursing homeconsents, make a reception order for the admission of thementally ill person into that hospital or nursing home anddetention therein: Provided further that if any relative or friend of thementally ill person enters into a bond, with or withoutsureties for such amount as the Magistrate may determine,undertaking that such mentally ill person will be properlytaken care of and shall be prevented from being any injury tohimself or to others, the Magistrate may, instead of making areception order, hand him over to, the care of such relativeor friend. Section: 25 - Order in case of mentally ill person cruellytreated or not under proper care and control: (1) Every officer in charge of a police station, who hasreason to believe that any person within the limits of hisstation is mentally ill and is not under proper care andcontrol, or is ill-treated or neglected by any relative orother person having charge of such mentally ill person, shallforthwith report the fact to the Magistrate within the locallimits of whose jurisdiction the mentally ill person resides. (2)Any private person who has reason to believe that anyperson is mentally ill and is not under proper care andcontrol, or is ill-treated or neglected by any relative orother person having charge of such mentally ill person, mayreport the fact to the Magistrate within the local limits ofwhose jurisdiction the mentally ill person resides. (3) If it appears to the Magistrate, on the report of apolice officer or on the report or information derived fromany other person, or otherwise that any mentally ill personwithin the local limits of his jurisdiction is not underproper care and control, or is ill-treated or neglected byany relative or other person having the charge of suchmentally ill person, the Magistrate may cause the mentallyill person to be produced before him, and summon suchrelative or other person who is, or who ought to be in chargeof, such mentally ill person. (4) If such relative or any other person is legally bound tomaintain the mentally ill person, the Magistrate may, by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ order, require the relative or the other person to takeproper care of such mentally ill person and where suchrelative or other person willfully neglects to comply withthe said order, he shall be punishable with fine which mayextend to two thousand rupees. (5) If there is no person legally bound to maintain thementally ill person, or if the person legally bound tomaintain the mentally ill person refuses or neglects tomaintain such person, or if, for any other reason, theMagistrate thinks fit so to do, he may cause the mentally illperson to be produced before him and, without prejudice toany action that may be taken under sub-section (4), proceedin the manner provided in section 24 as if such reason hadbeen produced before him under sub section (3) of section 23. Section:26 - Admission as inpatient after inquisition:If any District Court holding an inquisition under Chapter VIregarding any person who is found to be mentally ill is ofopinion that it is necessary so to do in the interests ofsuch person, it may, by order, direct that such person shallbe admitted and kept as an inpatient in a psychiatrichospital or psychiatric nursing home and every such order maybe varied from time to time or revoked by the District Court. Section:27 - Admission and detention of mentally ill prisoner: An order under section 30 of the Prisoners Act, 1900, orunder section 144 of the Air Force Act, 1950, or undersection 145 of the Army Act, 1950, or under section 143 orsection 144 of the Navy Act, 1957, or under section 330 orsection 335 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,directing the reception of a mentally ill prisoner into anypsychiatric hospital or psychiatric nursing home, shall besufficient authority for the admission of such person in suchhospital or psychiatric nursing home to which such person maybe lawfully transferred for detention therein 3 of 1990, 45of 1950, 46 of 1950, 62 of 1957, 2 of 1974 Section: 28 - Detention of alleged mentally ill personpending report by medical officer:(1) When any person alleged to be a mentally ill person https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appears or is brought before a Magistrate under section 23 orsection 25, the Magistrate may, by order in writing,authorize the detention of the alleged mentally ill personunder proper medical custody in an observation ward of ageneral hospital or general nursing home or psychiatrichospital or psychiatric nursing home or in any other suitableplace for such period not exceeding ten days as theMagistrate may consider necessary for enabling any medicalofficer to determine whether a medical certificate in respectof that alleged mentally ill person may properly be givenunder clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 24. (2) The Magistrate may, from time to time, for the purposementioned in sub-section (1), by order in writing, authorizesuch further detention of the alleged mentally ill person forperiods not exceeding ten days at a time as he may deemnecessary. Provided that no person shall be authorized to be detainedunder this sub-section for a continuous period exceedingthirty days in the agreeable.Section: 29 - Detention of mentally ill person pending hisremoval to psychiatric hospital or psychiatric nursing home:Whenever any reception order is made by a Magistrate undersection 22, section 24 or section 25, he may, for reasons tobe recorded in writing, direct that the mentally ill personin respect of whom the order is made may be detained for suchperiod not exceeding thirty days in such place as he may deemappropriate, pending the removal of such person to apsychiatric hospital or psychiatric nursing home. Section: 30 - Time and manner of medical examination ofmentally ill person: Where any order under this Chapter is required to be made onthe basis of a medical certificate, such order shall not bemade unless the person who has signed the medicalcertificate, or where such order is required to be made onthe basis of two medical certificates, the signatory of therespective certificates, has certified that he has personallyexamined the alleged mentally, ill person, (i) in the case of an order made on an application, notearlier than ten near days immediately before the date on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ which such application is made; and (ii) in any other case, not earlier than ten clear daysimmediately before the date of such order: Provided that where a reception order is required to be madeon the basis of two medical certificates such order shall notbe made unless the certificates show that the signatory ofeach certificate examined the alleged mentally ill personindependently of the signatory of the other certificate." 5.3. In the instant case, the reception order was not passed onproduction of the mentally ill person by the Police attracting theprocedure contemplated under Part III(B) of Chapter IV, viz., Sections 23to 25. Concededly, the reception order was passed by the learned JudicialMagistrate, Tambaram on an application filed by the third respondent, thebrother-in-law of the detenu. Of course, the application was alsosupported with a medical certificate dated 18.8.2007 issued by Dr.M.RameshKumar of Balaji Clinic, New No.140, N.M.K.Street, Ayanavaram, Chennai –600 023. However, strangely, the application was filed under Section 23of the Act for an order under Section 27 of the Act. As already pointedout, Section 23 of the Act is applicable only in the case of production ofthe mentally ill person before the Magistrate by the Officer incharge ofthe jurisdiction police station, but not in the case of an applicationfiled by the close relatives of the mentally ill person.5.4. Be that be, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram ought tohave seen that the requirements under Section 20(6) of the Act, viz., theapplication shall be accompanied by two medical certificates from twomedical practitioners of whom one shall be a medical practitioner in theservice of Government, and the procedure contemplated under Sections 21and 22 of the Act are mandatory in nature. Section 21 of the Actprescribes the contents of the medical certificates, viz., each of themedical practitioners should have:(i) independently examined the alleged mentally ill person; (ii) formed his opinion on the basis of his own observationsand from the particulars communicated to him;(iii) opined that the alleged mentally ill person issuffering from mental disorder of such a nature and degree asto warrant the detention of such person in a psychiatrichospital or psychiatric nursing home; and (iv) opined that such detention is necessary in the interestsof the health and personal safety of that person or for theprotection of others. 5.5. We perused the records produced before us from the file of thelearned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram. There is only one medicalcertificate dated 18.8.2007 issued by Dr.M.Ramesh Kumar of Balaji Clinic,New No.140, N.M.K.Street, Ayanavaram, Chennai – 600 023. Therefore, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ apparent on the the face of the records, the mandatory procedurecontemplated under Sections 20(6) and 21 of the Act is not complied with,viz., two medical certificates from two medical practitioners of whom oneshall be a medical practitioner in the service of Government, are notfurnished. This went unnoticed by the learned Judicial Magistrate,Tambaram. That apart, a perusal of the the medical certificate dated18.8.2007 issued by Dr.M.Ramesh Kumar of Balaji Clinic, New No.140,N.M.K.Street, Ayanavaram, Chennai – 600 023 reveals that initially the ageof the detenu was stated as 16 and then struck down and written as 60years, which throws a doubt as to whether the Doctor had examined thedetenu at all as per the procedure contemplated under Section 30 of theAct.5.6. A close reading of Section 22 of the Act makes it clear that, oncompliance of the requirements contemplated under Section 20 of the Act,in particular Section 20(6) of the Act, and Section 21 of the Act, if theMagistrate satisfies, he shall consider the statements made in theapplication and the evidence of mental illness as disclosed by the medicalcertificates and if there are sufficient grounds for proceeding further,he shall personally examine the alleged mentally ill person and pass thereception order.5.7. In the case on hand, only one medical certificate dated18.8.2007 issued by Dr.M.Ramesh Kumar of Balaji Clinic, New No.140,N.M.K.Street, Ayanavaram, Chennai – 600 023 was furnis hed along with theapplication. Even in the said medical certificate dated 18.8.2007,Dr.M.Ramesh Kumar of Balaji Clinic, New No.140, N.M.K.Street, Ayanavaram,Chennai – 600 023 has not certified that he has personally examined thedetenu as contemplated under Section 30 of the Act. Therefore, therequirements contemplated under Sections 20(6) and 21 read with Section 30of the Act had been grossly violated. 5.8. The latter limb of Section 22(4) of the Act provides that if theMagistrate is not so satisfied, he shall fix a date for furtherconsideration of the application and may make such inquiries concerningthe alleged mentally ill person as he thinks fit, and Section 22(5) of theAct provides that the notice of the date fixed under Section 22(4) of theact shall be given to the applicant and to any other person. Assuming thelearned Magistrate, had ordered notice on 22.8.2007 to the Director,Institute of Mental Health, Kilpauk, Chennai, for such further enquiry andfixed the further date of hearing as 24.8.2007 for consideration of theapplication under Sections 22(4) and 22(5) of the Act, he ought to haveensured the service of notice on the Director, Institute of MentalHealth, Kilpauk, Chennai and waited for his medical opinion for passingthe reception order.5.9. The procedure contemplated under Section 28 of the Act isapplicable in both cases, viz., when an application for reception order ismade by the Medical Officer, by the husband, wife or any other relative of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the alleged mentally ill person as provided under Sections 20 to 22 of theAct, or when the alleged mentally ill person is produced before theMagistrate under Sections 23 to 25 of the Act. In either case, as perSection 28(2) of the Act, the Magistrate may, from time to time, for thepurpose mentioned in Section 28(1) of the Act, by order in writing,authorize such further detention of the alleged mentally ill person forperiods not exceeding ten days at a time as he may deem necessary.However, no person shall be authorized to be detained under this sub-section for a continuous period exceeding thirty days, as per proviso toSection 28(2) of the Act. Therefore, again there is a lapse on the partof the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram, for having passed areception order for thirty days continuously, as rightly pointed out bythe learned Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu in his report dated13.9.2007.5.10. A closure comparative analysis of Part III(A) and III(B) in thecontext of Section 30 of the Act makes it clear that while Part III(A) ofChapter-IV prescribes that an application for a reception order made bythe Medical Officer in charge of a psychiatric hospital or psychiatricnursing home, or by the husband, wife or any other relative of thementally ill person has to be accompanied by two medical certificates fromtwo medical practitioners of whom one shall be a medical practitioner inthe service of Government, and the signatory of the respectivecertificates have to certify that they have personally examined thealleged mentally ill person as per Section 30 of the Act, Part III(B) ofChapter-IV of the Act deals with the procedure to be followed when amentally ill person is produced by the Police concerned, whereunder, theMagistrate has to get the opinion from a Medical Practitioner, who shallcertify that he has personally examined the alleged mentally ill person.In short, Part III(A) of Chapter-IV of the Act requires two medicalcertificates from two medical practitioners of whom one shall be a medicalpractitioner in the service of Government, and Part III(B) of Chapter-IVof the Act requires a medical certificate from the medical practitioner,as evident from Section 30 of the Act. This requirement under law had notbeen properly appreciated by the learned Judicial Magistrate.6.1. It was also brought to our notice by the learned AdditionalPublic Prosecutor that the bonafide of the petitioner is also questionableas, even though she claims to be a neighbour of the detenu, she is thewife of a life convict, who is undergoing his sentence. 6.2. Since the case involves corrupt practice adopted in detaining thedetenu illegally, taking recourse to the provisions of the Act, and we areof the considered opinion that the core and the central issue appears tobe an attempt to grab the property of the detenu, into which we do notpropose to go in detail in the above H.C.P.No.1334 of 2007, except torecord our serious concern, we deem it fit to refer the furtherinvestigation with regard to the entire issue to Mr.Thukkaiandi, JointDirector, Special Investigation Team, Directorate of Vigilance and Anti- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ corruption, Chennai, this Court, a sentinel of the people's rights, cannotclose its eyes to matters which strictly do not fall within the realm oflaw, or in cases where law is thrown to winds and those who are expectedto obey, observe and follow law, decide to violate it. 6.3. We direct the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to hand overall the files relating to the case from the files of (i) Tambaram PoliceStation; and (ii) Director, Institute of Mental Health, to theInvestigating Officer.6.4. As far as the records relating to C.M.P. No.4215 of 2007 on thefile of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram are concerned, the sameshall be in the custody of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,Chengalpattu, and as and when any information is sought for by theInvestigating Officer, authenticated copies of the documents shall befurnished.6.5. After detailed investigation, the Investigating Officer shall,ferret out the truth, submit his report expeditiously, in any event,within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. TheInvestigating Officer, on the basis of the final report, shall, byhimself, take action in accordance with law against all the erred persons,except the Judicial Officer, strictly following the procedurecontemplated under law. 6.6. A copy of the final report with authenticated copy of allmaterials of the investigation shall be forwarded to the RegistrarGeneral, who shall place the same before the Hon'ble Chief Justice toinitiate necessary disciplinary action against the learned JudicialMagistrate, Tambaram, if it is so required, in accordance with law.6.7. We are satisfied that the detenu suffered illegal detention as heis a normal person, as also so opined and recorded in the earlier orderdated 9.8.2007 made in H.C.P.No.1114 of 2007, and hence, the detenu is setat liberty forthwith.7. As the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has raised suspicion asto the bona fide of the petitioner, we direct the Investigating Officer togive appropriate direction to the local Police concerned to take care ofthe safety of the detenu and his property. If any assistance is requiredfrom the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, Chennai in thisregard, the same shall be provided to him by the Member Secretary, TamilNadu State Legal Services Authority, Chennai.8. Before concluding, we record our appreciation for the valuableassistance rendered by Mr.Selvaraj, learned counsel and Mr.N.R.Elango,learned Additional Public Prosecutor in disposing the above habeas corpus https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petition.The habeas corpus petition is allowed with the above directions.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.sasiTo1. The Member Secretary Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority,Chennai.2. The Inspector of Police V-1, Villivakkam Police Station Villivakkam, Chennai.3. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.+ 2 CCs To Ms.M.Chithra Gomathy, Advocate SR NO.57761, 57663la[co]gp/1.10.HCP No.1334 of 2007