The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 (MHA) has retrospective effect, ruled the Kerala High Court recently while quashing criminal charges filed against a woman who attempted to die by suicide in 2016 [xxx v State of Kerala & anr].
Notably, an attempt to die by suicide used to be a criminal offence in India under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, until it was decriminalised with the introduction of Section 115 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017.
In a judgment delivered on October 21, Justice CS Sudha highlighted that the 2017 Act, being a progressive law to protect and rehabilitate individuals suffering from mental illness, should not be limited by its effective date and would have retrospective effect.
"Where a law is enacted for the benefit of a community as a whole, even in the absence of a provision (conferring retrospective application), the statute may be held to be retrospective in nature. There can be no doubt that MHA is a beneficial legislation and so the benefits contained therein require to be extended to the entire class of persons for whose benefit it was enacted. As it is a beneficial piece of legislation, a retrospective effect can be given to the same," the Court said.
In the same ruling, the Court also criticised the State for not dropping the criminal prosecution against the woman earlier.
"It is quite disturbing to note that in spite of the obligation of the State made clear under sub-section (2) of Section 115 to provide care, treatment and rehabilitation to a person who attempted to commit suicide under severe stress, the State thought it fit to prosecute the petitioner for reasons best known to it," the Court said.
The Court was dealing with a plea by the wife of a former Member of the Legislative Assembly. The woman had suffered significant mental distress after edited audio clips of her private conversations were circulated by opponents during her husband’s election campaign.
These defamatory audio clips not only harmed her reputation but also adversely affected her husband’s electoral prospects. Owing to severe stress, the woman attempted suicide by overdosing on sleeping pills in 2016.
A criminal case was filed against her under Section 309 (attempt to commit suicide) of the now-repealed IPC.
The woman thus approached the Court to quash the case against her, arguing that pursuing these criminal charges would violate her rights under the Mental Health Act.
However, the Public Prosecutor countered that the Mental Healthcare Act only came into effect on July 7, 2018, well after the suicide attempt. The State counsel, therefore, argued that the woman should face prosecution under the IPC.
The Court noted that the general principle is that laws cannot apply retrospectively, or that a "law passed today cannot apply to the events of the past." However, it further observed that the rules a different when the law in question is a beneficial one.
Referring to Supreme Court rulings, including the one in Rattan Lal v State of Punjab (AIR 1965 SC 444), the High Court observed that when a law introduces a benefit for certain persons - without any corresponding harm to others or the public - it can be presumed that such a law has retrospective effect.
"The presumption would be that such a legislation, giving a purposive construction, would warrant it to be given a retrospective effect," the High Court said.
The Court, therefore, quashed the criminal case against the petitioner.
"I find that it would be an absolute waste of time and an abuse of the process of the court to proceed with the case," the Court added.
The petitioner was represented by advocates CP Udayabhanu, Navaneeth N Nath, PU Pratheesh Kumar, Rassal Janardhanan A, Abhishek M Kunnathu, and SK Premraj.
Senior public prosecutor CK Suresh appeared for the State.
[Read Judgment]