top of page


In this blog, the author has given a commentary of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 which has gained utmost importance in this current period of Lockdown.

Care and treatment for individuals influenced by mental illness has moved into another period in India with the enactment of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 (MHCA), which tries to adjust and blend the current laws on emotional well-being care. This is pursuant to India signing the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Person with Disabilities in 2007.Even while this law was bantered in the parliament, and after its institution on April 7, 2017, it has ruled the scholastic and expert talk of the mental network in India. By and large, the response to this Act has been blended; it has gotten the two blocks and bunches from different quarters. The Act has been applauded for ensuring and maintaining the privileges of individuals with dysfunctional behaviours. Above all, the Act has been praised for empowering individuals with psychological instability to announce ahead of time how they can (or can't) be dealt with. What's more, the Act enables them to pick an individual to settle on treatment choices for their benefit when they are not in a situation to do as such. Then again, concerns have been communicated with respect to the troubles this Act may posture for the therapists who need to truly support their patients. Numerous critiques and assessment pieces have examined the ramifications of this Act on the acts of psychiatry in India. Be that as it may, as far as we could possibly know, these conversations have not tended to the ramifications of the Act on a particular zone of psychiatry – treatment of addictive issues. [1]


On March 27, 2017, Lok Sabha in a unanimous decision passed the Mental Healthcare Act 2017 which was passed in Rajya Sabha on August 2016 and got its approval from Honorable President of India on April 2017. [2] The new act defines “mental illness” as a “substantial disorder of thinking, mood, perception, orientation, or memory that grossly impairs judgment or ability to meet the ordinary demands of life, mental conditions associated with the abuse of alcohol and drugs.” [3] This act repeals/revokes the current Mental Healthcare Act 1987 which had been generally condemned for not perceiving the privileges of a mentally sick individual and leading towards isolating such risky patients. This act has overturned Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code which criminalizes attempted suicide by mentally ill person. [4] Another feature of this Act is to secure the rights of an individual with psychological sickness, and in this way encouraging his/her access to treatment and by an advance mandate; how he/she needs to be treated for his/her illness.


1. It hopes to engage people experiencing psychological instability, in this way denoting a takeoff from the Mental Health Act 1987. The 2017 Act recognizes the agency of individuals with psychological instability, permitting them to make decisions in regards to their well being, given that they have the fitting information to do as such.

2. The Act plans to defend the privileges of the individuals with psychological instability, alongside access to healthcare and treatment without discrimination from the government. Additionally, insurers are now obligated to make provisions for medical insurance for the treatment of psychological illness on the same basis as is available for the treatment of physical ailments.

3. The Mental Health Care Act 2017 incorporates provisions for the enrolment of emotional wellness related foundations and for the regulation of the sector. These measures incorporate the need of setting up psychological well-being foundations the nation over to guarantee that no individual with dysfunctional behaviour should go far for treatment, just as the formation of a mental health review board which will go about as a regulatory body. [5]

4. The Act has confined the use of Electroconvulsive treatment (ECT) to be utilized only in instances of crisis, and alongside muscle relaxants and sedation. Further, ECT has moreover been disallowed to be utilized as feasible treatment for minors.

5. The duties of different organizations, for example, the police as for individuals with mental illness have been laid out in the 2017 Act.

6. The Mental Health Care Act 2017 has moreover vouched to handle disgrace of psychological sickness, and has plot a few measures on the best way to accomplish the equivalent.


There are significant confinements to this act. Some of these limitations are in actuality opposing to the expressed standards of the demonstration. The constraints may impede the important acknowledgment of the progressive standards in this act. There are glaring holes and exclusions, and a few tradeoffs have been made for the sake of adjusting worldwide standards to the Indian setting. There is an absence of assurance to set up powerful frameworks which will give satisfactory assets to actualize the human rights plan supposedly revered in the new act.

1. Regulation Of Informal Admissions Is Discrimination Against Mental Illness[6]

The act upholds the idea that all citizens, including those with mental illness, have a right to equality and non discrimination. Section 21 (1) states that “every person with mental illness shall be treated as equal to persons with physical illness in the provision of all healthcare.” Contrary to these declared principles of parity with physical illness, the act has brought all voluntary admissions of adult persons with mental illness under its purview. [7]

2. Additional burden on families

The act specifies that without an application from NR, a patient can't be admitted to the clinic against their desire. Settling on such a choice, i.e., to apply and be liable for obligatory admission to the medical clinic against the patients' expressed wish, may prompt disdain, outrage, and even retaliation toward the NR. Families previously battling with a shocking ailment are presently troubled with the duty of exceptionally significant choices, for example, necessary affirmation, a considerable lot of which may not be acknowledged by the patient.

3. The act leads to discrimination against singles having no families. The act, however vocal about individual rights, has abstained from ensuring a solitary individual equivalent access to proper and expedient emotional well-being care. This could have been kept away from if the act had allowed prompt intermediary decision making powers in such circumstances to assign nearby self-government representatives or clinical experts by the circumspection of the MO.

4. In its scramble to keep away from duty regarding the consideration of mentally ill, the new demonstration has left tremendous vulnerabilities and numerous unanswered inquiries. On the off chance that a NR isn't acting to the greatest advantage of a patient, the NR ought to preferably be evacuated. A patient who lacks capacity can't expel a current NR. Indeed, even while having the capacity, they might not have the boldness or financial independence to expel a relative as NR. Any such expulsion can agitate family connections. The question of having an NR would not have arisen if the patient had the capacity to decide in the first place.

5. Section 94 describes the 72 hours emergency treatment option where any MO can provide with all treatments that are immediately necessary to prevent death or irreversible harm to the health of the patient or stop the patient from inflicting serious harm to self or others. [8]ECT is a well-established, lifesaving treatment for individuals with severe depression, especially those at high risk of suicide. Hence, the act completely ignores the positive effects of the therapy which is in fact allowed in many developed countries.

6. The estimate and budget required to meet the obligations under the act is not available. It is unclear how the funds will be distributed between the central and the state governments.

7. In developing nations like India, people with dysfunctional behaviour and their circumstances are being exasperated by financial and social variables, for example, absence of access to healthcare, superstition, absence of mindfulness, disgrace, and discrimination. The bill doesn't immediate any arrangements to address these components. The mental health care bill doesn't offer much on anticipation and early intercession.


The new Mental Healthcare Act 2017 should change the major methodology on psychological wellness issues including a reasonable patient-driven human healthcare, rather than a criminal-driven one, in India, the second most crowded nation and probably the quickest economy on the planet. The rules should be evaluated on viewpoints, for example, essential anticipation, reintegration, and recovery in light of the fact that without such fortifying, its usage would be deficient and the issue of previous psychological wellness patients will keep on existing. Henceforth, being hopeful about the bill, there is a need to hang tight and watch for its execution.

Submitted by:

Lavanya Ambalkar,

Symbiosis Law School, Pune

(Images used for representative purpose only)


bottom of page