Mental Health and Human Rights

Ayush Kishore

KiiT School of Law,

Kalinga Institue of Technology,

Deemed to be University, Bhubaneshwar.

Introduction

Mental Health is a new emerging domain of rights under the ambit of Human Rights. The very reason for this development is that in recent few years only, people have recognized its importance. A few years back, people were unaware that such issues may happen, even if it was happening, it wasn’t considered ‘too serious’. However, only the last stage, where the person was to be admitted to the mental health care center, then only it was felt as a serious issue. Even, minor effects in mood, thinking, and ability to interact with others will also fall under the ambit of mental health, if not addressed at an early stage, it may turn vicious in the future.

The right to health was first recognised as a part of a fundamental right, under Article 21[1] of the Constitution of India, in the case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India[2]. The first law to govern mental health in India was the Indian Lunacy Act of 1912[3], which itself drew heavily from the very old English legislation, which was the English Lunatics Act, of 1845. The Indian Psychiatric Society suggested a draft in 1950, however, it was only given assent by the then-Hon’ble President of India in May 1987 and implemented in 1993 as the Mental Health Act 1987[4]. Criticism of the Mental Health Act 1987 led to the Mental Health Care Bill 2013, which was finally passed as the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017. The act to define mental healthcare, under the definition clause, Section 2(o)[5]. The act also defines mental illness under s. 2(s)[6]. But it lacks the definition of ‘Mental Health’, per se.

The term mental health is defined in various ways by various experts in the field of medical science, and even experts in humanitarian subjects. The World Health Organisation (WHO), in an article on its official website[7], has defined mental health as a state of well-being of a person, and one who can cope with his lifestyle, stress, learn and work well.

The above image is a clip from the aforesaid article, published on the website of the WHO. This can be treated as a definition of mental health, but this definition is also very exhaustive. The further paragraphs of the aforementioned article mention that the mere absence of mental disorders is not a mental health problem. While sometimes it is disguised too, a person is even unable to unearth the fact that he/she is suffering from mental health issues.

Nexus with Human Rights

While some people are unable to discover that they are suffering from mental health issues, while there are many, who are unable to secure the proper treatment or consultation for the mental health issues, therein the nexus of human rights comes along with mental health. This is more dangerous when a person is knowingly unable to seek help for mental health issues because mental or physical health is a fundamental right and a human right.

Apart from the right to health being embedded within the meaning of Article 21 in the Constitution of India, there are various international conventions, which has specifically denoted the right to mental health and these conventions proffer one more nexus between human rights and mental health.

Challenges to the Right to Mental Health

But, bringing such kind of right within the ambit of Fundamental rights, then it becomes a negative right and makes it difficult on the part of the state to implement such rights because physical health is too easy to diagnose and treat, mental health, whereas, is difficult to diagnose at first. As discussed earlier, in this article, it is disguised too. Secondly, modern society is ready to accept and see its treatment, but in rural India, such things are mocked, and out of a taboo, people are unable to come out with this. Then, it becomes the responsibility of the government to first of all make the people aware of this, and create a mass awareness about it. There are still similar topics, like sex education, which is still taboo, although it is not a part of the discussion in this article.

However, since mental health is discussed in many international conventions, de jure it becomes a part of international law and international law is too weak, because the subjects can choose the jurisdiction of international law itself. There are still many orthodox countries, that don’t have any legal mechanism to address mental health. They still consider mental health as a mental disorder, until it is too severe. However, India is fortunate to have such a legal mechanism, which was discussed earlier in this article, the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017. The headnote of the aforesaid statute itself mentions that the very purpose of this act is to tally the international conventions with the domestic laws.

Further, there are also certain social issues, that are creating hindrances in tackling mental health issues among the people. There are many solutions to these also, but until and unless it is pointed it is not possible to fetch those issues out. Those issues can be listed as follows:

Stigma and discrimination: There is a taboo and this is a stigma in the mind of the society that a person, for instance, in need of diagnosis, or if any person is receiving treatment, it is a general perception in the minds of their neighbours, that the said person is ‘insane’. This leads to a huge discrimination. Such people are viciously mistreated. Hence, people hesitate to seek help for mental health issues, just due to the behaviour of their society. This creates a barrier to the right to mental health.
Lack of recourses and workforce: There is a significant lack of resources, required for tackling the right to mental health. There is a lack of financial investment in the said field. Also, there is a shortage of adequate workforce, involved in the mental health system. In India, there are currently 4,000 psychiatrists practicing all over India, the ratio which comes out is about 0.3 psychiatrists over a population of 1,00,000 and it doesn’t meet the prescribed parameters of the WHO. The number of clinical psychologists is also limited. Estimates suggest there are around 3,800 clinical psychologists in India, which again is insufficient to meet the mental health needs of the population.
Limited understanding: The people have inadequate knowledge about mental health issues. The abovementioned two pointers are dependent on this point. Discrimination occurs, or people are even unable to fetch adequate resources because people are not aware of how mental stress can be tackled. This lack of knowledge is not limited to the rural society of India, as per prejudice. The urban ‘modern’ class is also to a great extent unaware of these issues.

The way forward

The mechanism of implementation of rights is not very easy, in any of the jurisdictions of the world. Rather, in modern democracies, the states are very selective while conferring rights to the people, even in many circumstances the states are hesitant too. There are certain examples like the Constitution of the US has only seven rights, conferred by the people, in their bill of rights, equivalent to the Fundamental Rights in India. The classic example of this situation is the Fundamental Right of Right to Property, conferred under Article 31 of the Constitution of India, it was repealed in the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1975 and was shifted to Article 300-A of the Constitution. It turned into a mere constitutional right, from a fundamental right.

However, India is fortunate to have a bona-fide independent judiciary, which has by due course of time increased the ambit of Fundamental Rights, through its activism. One fundamental right in India has a very ambit and has been interpreted numerous times and there are still very opportunities to further do so. In the US, the mechanism of rights is very absolute, there is no existence of the doctrine of reasonable restriction. The effects of those rights can’t be enhanced nor can be decreased. But, in India, it can be increased, but can’t be reduced. So, such capability the constitutional machinery of India poses.

Likewise, human rights are linked to mental health in various ways. The right is health is already a fundamental right, under the ambit of the Art, 21. There, it is just referred to the physical health. However, the legal interpretation and judicial activism could carry forward the tackle the issues of mental health.

Conclusion

Mental health is a very growing field, in terms of academia and also in the socio-legal aspect. Mental health just like physical health is also of similar importance and should also be brought within the ambit of Art 21, because it is very easy to diagnose the physical health of a person, but not the mental health. Mental health requires special care and attention. It is also linked to dignity, which is another important part of the meaning of Art 21. It is not just a medical issue, it is much more than that. By fostering environments where mental health is respected and supported, societies can promote inclusivity, resilience, and overall human flourishing. Embracing a rights-based approach to mental health is not just a moral imperative but a pathway to creating more compassionate and equitable communities where every individual can thrive.

References:-

[1] Protection of life and personal liberty.—No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.

[2] (1984) 3 SCC 161: 1984 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 389

[3] Act no. 4 of 1912

[4] Act 14 of 1987

[5] “Mental healthcare” includes analysis and diagnosis of a person’s mental condition and treatment as well as care and rehabilitation of such person for his mental illness or suspected mental illness;

[6] “mental illness” means a substantial disorder of thinking, mood, perception, orientation or memory that grossly impairs judgment, behaviour, capacity to recognise reality or ability to meet the ordinary demands of life, mental conditions associated with the abuse of alcohol and drugs, but does not include mental retardation which is a condition of arrested or incomplete development of mind of a person, specially characterised by subnormality of intelligence

[7] https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/mental-health-strengthening-our-response#:~:text=Concepts%20in%20mental%20health,and%20contribute%20to%20their%20community.

Spread the love