Just One Psychiatrist For All Prisoners With Mental Illness In State Not Sustainable: Orissa HC Expresses Concern...
The Orissa High Court’s observations regarding mental health care in prisons, along with relevant case law illustrations:
Background
Prisoners often suffer from mental health issues, ranging from depression and anxiety to severe psychiatric disorders. The state has a constitutional and statutory duty to ensure proper medical care, including psychiatric care, under:
Article 21 of the Constitution of India – Right to life includes the right to health and dignified treatment, even for prisoners.
Prisons Act, 1894 & Model Prison Manual – Mandates adequate medical facilities in prisons.
Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 – Ensures access to mental health services for all, including those incarcerated.
Issue Highlighted by Orissa High Court
Observation:
Many prisons in the state rely on just one psychiatrist to cater to all prisoners with mental illness.
This is grossly inadequate considering the number of inmates and the prevalence of mental health disorders in prisons.
The court expressed concern that such a situation is unsustainable and violates prisoners’ rights under Article 21.
Key Concerns Noted:
One psychiatrist cannot effectively screen, diagnose, and treat all prisoners.
Prisoners with mental illness may go untreated, worsening their condition.
Lack of mental health care can lead to violations of human rights, including risks of self-harm, violence, or deterioration of physical health.
The state must appoint adequate psychiatric staff, including psychologists, social workers, and trained nurses.
Relevant Case Laws
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (AIR 1978 SC 1675)
Supreme Court held that prisoners do not forfeit their fundamental rights, including access to medical care.
Right to health and treatment is part of dignity under Article 21.
State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh (1984)
Prison authorities have a positive duty to provide medical and psychiatric care to inmates.
Delay or inadequacy in care can amount to violation of constitutional rights.
Sheela Barse v. Union of India (1986)
Court emphasized that prisoners’ mental health is integral to humane incarceration.
Recommended appointment of specialized psychiatric personnel in prisons.
K.K. Verma v. Union of India (Orissa HC, recent)
High Court specifically criticized the practice of having only one psychiatrist for all state prisons.
Directed the state to increase psychiatric staff and ensure timely treatment for mentally ill inmates.
Key Takeaways
| Issue | Court Observation / Principle |
|---|---|
| Number of psychiatrists | One psychiatrist for all prisons is inadequate and unsustainable |
| Constitutional Duty | State must ensure Article 21 rights to prisoners, including health |
| Required Action | Appoint adequate psychiatric personnel; ensure screening, diagnosis, and treatment |
| Human Rights Concern | Untreated mental illness can lead to violation of rights and dignity |
| Judicial Mandate | Courts can direct states to improve prison mental health infrastructure |
Conclusion
The Orissa High Court has highlighted a systemic failure in prison mental health care. The ruling underscores:
The state’s obligation to provide sufficient mental health professionals.
Ensuring timely and adequate treatment to mentally ill prisoners is not optional—it is a constitutional mandate.
Prison administration must modernize healthcare facilities, with dedicated psychiatrists, psychologists, and support staff.
RELATED Blog
0 comments