AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also the petitioner himself who is present in person before the Court and also learned counsel appearing for
non-petitioner No.2 and the learned Public Prosecutor.
This revision petition has been preferred to quash and set aside the order dated 07.07.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track) No.5,
Jaipur City, Jaipur upholding the order dated 24.04.2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate No.16, Jaipur City.
A complaint/application came to be filed by the petitioner alleging mental cruelty and forced treatment with regard to his alleged mental ill health
against his family members including parents. That application came to be dismissed by the order dated 24.04.2010. A criminal appeal was preferred
which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 07.07.2010.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that later on NALSA (Legal Services to the Mentally Ill and Mentally Disabled Person) Scheme, 2015 has
come into force wherein various provisions and principles have been laid down for protection of the fundamental and human rights of the mentally ill
and retarted persons. One of such principles enumerated at serial No. 8 reads as under:
Informed consent for treatment- Legal Services institutions shall ensure that when a person is subjected to treatment for mental illness, his/her
informed consent is obtained. If any person is incapable of giving such consent, the informed consent of his/her relatives or friend and in their absence,
the satisfaction of the Court under Part II Chapter V of Mental Health Act, 1987 shall be ensured.
Learned counsel has also drawn attention of the Court to Section 25 of Mental Health Act, 1987. It has also been stated that a rejection order was
passed by CJM, Jaipur on 30.11.2006 against which the matter is pending before learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan.
Having considered the facts mentioned in the petition as also stated by petitioner Vijaypal Singh himself and learned counsel appearing for him this
Court thinks it appropriate to dispose of this criminal revision petition with the direction to Member Secretary of Rajasthan State Legal Services
Authority to enusre compliance of the provisions made for ""informed consent for treatment"" as mentioned aforesaid in the scheme of 2015.
Respondent No.2 is also directed to restrain himself from showing excessive possessive attitude towards the petitioner who happens to be his son by
administering forced medical treatment in the form of electric shocks or heavy medical doses, which are not prescribed by the authorized Psychiatrist.
The respondent No.2 will also persuade other family members to ensure compliance of this direction given by this Court qua the petitioner. It is further
observed that the order dated 24.04.2010 as also the order dated 07.07.2010 shall not come in the way to decide the appeal pending before the learned
Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan. The learned Sessions Judge is expected to dispose of the appeal without being influenced by the aforesaid order
dated 07.07.2010 and 24.04.2010.
The criminal revision stands disposed off.