Mental Health And Human Rights: Connecting Global Laws With Indian Laws
- IJLLR Journal
- Sep 23
- 2 min read
Amarnath Prasad, Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar
ABSTRACT
This paper critically explores how mental health jurisprudence in India has evolved—moving from the colonial shadow of the Lunacy Acts to the more progressive and rights-based vision embodied in the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017. This legal journey is not isolated; it is deeply connected to India’s international commitments, particularly under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which places dignity, equality, and meaningful participation at the heart of its framework. The central question running through this analysis is whether the 2017 Act has successfully dismantled entrenched stigma, expanded access to care, and safeguarded individual autonomy in practice.
The discussion pays close attention to key legal developments, such as the decriminalisation of suicide under Section 115 of the Act. This landmark shift reframes despair not as crime but as a public health concern demanding care and compassion. Equally significant is its nuanced relationship with the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, where an emerging emphasis on treatment and rehabilitation over punishment reflects a slow but visible change in state priorities. The judiciary too has played an indispensable role in breathing life into these statutory rights—by ensuring humane treatment, pushing back against discrimination in areas like employment and health insurance, and reminding the state of its constitutional obligations towards persons with mental illness.
Yet, despite this progressive legal and judicial momentum, the Act’s transformative promise remains partially unfulfilled. The gap lies not in the text of the law but in its uneven translation on the ground: insufficient infrastructure, limited financial commitment, and a glaring lack of sensitisation among law enforcement and medical personnel. Social prejudice, stubborn and deep-rooted, continues to act as a silent barrier— keeping many individuals from seeking help, and reinforcing cycles of exclusion. The judiciary has emerged as a powerful catalyst of change, but lasting reform cannot rest on courts alone. What is needed is a broader, collective push: sustained political will, stronger administrative measures, and perhaps most importantly, a societal shift in how we perceive mental health—not as weakness or deviance, but as a shared human concern that demands empathy, dignity, and inclusion.
