DIAL SINGH Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition for a writ of habeas corpus, I vide my short order dated August 12, 1987, had directed that Kashmir Singh who had been confined to the mental asylum at Amritsar, in the purported exercise of powers under the Indian Lunacy Act, 1912 (for short the Act), be set at liberty forthwith as I was of the opinion that the detention there was "totally illegal and unwarranted". Here are the reasons for the said order.

(2.) The fundamentals that (i) no person can be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law (Article 21 of the Constitution) and (ii) in case this Court is satisfied that the custody or detention of a person in a mental asylum is illegal or is in any way violative of the procedure established by law, i.e., the Act, then it is entitled to direct his release, are not in dispute. Equally not in dispute is the fact that though as per Section 3(5) of the Act is lunatic has been defined as on idiot or a person of unsound mind, yet the said words remain undefined. Both these terms, however, undoubtedly indicate an abnormal state of mind as distinguished from a weakness of mind or senility following old age. Indisputably a man of weak mental strength cannot be called an idiot or a man of unsound mind. Further it appears beyond dispute that no person can have direct experience of the mind of another and the proper test of insanity is his conduct. A person might conceivably have all kinds of mental unsoundness and all kinds of delusions, but if his conduct remains normal, there does not appears to be any power to deal with him under the Act. It to my mind deals with the conduct of the person concerned and the proper test for conduct is not the belief that another person may entertain. What appears material for purposes of the Act is the conduct exhibited by the alleged lunatic. It is this test which, to my mind, is to be kept in view by the Court while assuming jurisdiction under the Act. The Court is duty-bound to determine judicially keeping in view the distinction between mere weakness of intellect and lunacy as defined in Section 3(5) of the Act as to whether the person alleged to be lunatic deserves to be confined within the four walls of an asylum.

(3.) The undisputed factual matrix is as follows :-