The Punjab and Haryana High Court has strongly criticized the state governments of Punjab and Haryana for their prolonged delay in framing rules under the Mental Health Care Act, 2017. The court has directed both states to notify the rules within 60 days and submit a compliance report by July 24.
A division bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel made the observation during the hearing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Pushpanjali Trust, a welfare society advocating for the implementation of the 2017 Act.
“It is unfortunate to note that even after the expiry of 7-8 years since the promulgation of the Act of 2017, rules have not yet been notified by both the states of Punjab and Haryana,” the bench said, calling the delay “regrettable,” especially since the law is a welfare legislation aimed at ensuring access to mental healthcare services.
The court emphasized that the absence of such rules is hampering the objectives of the Act. “The Act of 2017 cannot achieve its intended purpose without the corresponding rules. Both the states are legally obliged to frame these rules to operationalize various provisions of the Act,” the court noted.
The PIL was argued in person by petitioner Aditya Rametra from Chandigarh, who presented the court with key goals that should be fulfilled under the Act, including the provision of basic and emergency mental healthcare services at community health centres, the establishment of half-way homes and group homes, dedicated budgetary allocations, and educational and training programs for professionals dealing with mental illness.
The court directed the Departments of Health and Family Welfare in both states to take immediate action and ensure the rules are notified within sixty days. The matter will be taken up again after the submission of the compliance report on or before July 24.
The Mental Health Care Act, 2017, passed by Parliament and notified in May 2018, aims to provide mental healthcare services and protect the rights of persons with mental illness. However, without the necessary rules and administrative framework, its provisions remain largely unenforced in both states.
