SHEILA BARSE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have perused the excellent report submitted by Sri Gopal Subramanium, Senior Advocate. At the outset, we consider it our duty to place on record our deep appreciation of the time and energy spent by Sri Subramanium in inquiring into the situation. We have no hesitation in accepting the report in its entirety. There is one other aspect which requires immediate attention.

(2.) Sri Subramanium, though worked in his capacity as Commissioner appointed by this Court, appears to have put himself to personal expenditure in tens of thousands of rupees. We request him to furnish an account so that at least there should be some restitution of the money spent by him.

(3.) The report, in effect, is in three parts. The first part pertains to the provisions for rehabilitation of non-criminal mentally ill patients in the State of Assam. It is a shocking state of affairs that there is no understanding of the judgment of this Court dated 17th August, 1993, which strictly prohibited confining non-criminal mentally ill patients to jail. The State of Assam has a splendid record of having confined 387 persons to jail only on the ground that they were mentally ill. In many of the cases the Commissioner has found that they were, in fact, no mentally ill. In one case a person was confined to jail for merely being "talkative. At present, no steps are being taken by the State of Assam to have rehabilitation homes for non-criminal mentally ill persons. A part of the report deals with the need in this behalf and has also offered suggestions.