Compassion needed for those acquitted due to mental illness

The Kerala High Court’s observation that keeping people in mental health institutions for long periods even after they are acquitted in criminal cases due to mental illness amounts to a violation of their rights has highlighted a major humanitarian issue. There are many contradictions when it comes to crime and punishment. Not everyone who commits a crime is punished, and not everyone escapes punishment either. In courts, evidence, witness statements, and circumstances are what matter most. A significant number of accused persons are acquitted because of mental illness. Courts usually give severe punishment for crimes committed intentionally. But in cases where crimes are linked to mental illness or disability, courts often show some compassion. However, the reality is that society and even family members do not always show the same compassion toward those acquitted on mental health grounds. It was while considering such an appeal that the High Court observed that continuing to keep acquitted persons in hospitals amounts to a violation of their rights.

The Division Bench of Justice V. Raja Vijayaraghavan and Justice K.V. Jayakumar made the observation while hearing an appeal filed by a Kochi native accused in the murder of a 10-year-old boy. The court directed the Director of the Social Justice Department to submit a detailed report on the issue. In 2023, the High Court had set aside the sentence imposed by the Sessions Court against the petitioner after considering his mental illness. The court had ordered proper treatment at the Mental Health Centre in Thrissur. It also directed that once he recovered, he should either be released to his relatives or rehabilitated. However, the issue came up again after doctors reported that his condition had worsened due to liver disease and other health problems, and that his relatives were not responding. Doctors also informed the court that although treatment was continuing, his health condition was not suitable for rehabilitation at present.

Following the report about his deteriorating health and continued treatment at the Medical College Hospital, the court appointed an amicus curiae to examine similar situations. The amicus informed the court that there is a shortage of rehabilitation centres in the state. There are reportedly only three such centres in Ernakulam, and none currently have vacancies. The court also pointed out that the law allows for appointing a representative for patients when relatives fail to come forward. It suggested that the Director of the Social Justice Department or a person appointed by the director could act in that role. Following this, the Social Justice Department Director was made a party to the case.

Even when courts acquit people, society often continues to treat them like criminals. This mindset has existed for years and cannot be changed easily. Social organisations and voluntary groups can play a major role in changing such attitudes.

Even close family members often hesitate to accept and support acquitted persons again. Fear of social stigma and concerns about the person’s illness are major reasons. Many family members may not have the emotional strength to forgive incidents that happened years ago. In such situations, the Social Justice Department can provide meaningful support. The government has the responsibility to help people who are isolated and helpless in society. Legal technicalities should not become obstacles to such support. Let's hope that the High Court’s intervention will open the way for better rehabilitation and care for such individuals.