One cannot be said to be mentally ill merely because he makes allegations against judges: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court on Thursday held that a person cannot be said to be suffering from a mental illness only because of his conduct or because he wrote letters raising allegations against judges of the High Court [Akhil Bandhu Saha vs Member Secretary, State Legal Services Authority]..Single-judge Justice Amrita Sinha, therefore, quashed the order passed by the Member Secretary of State Legal Services Authority (SLSA) on December 11, 2018 ordering a "psychiatric test" of a lawyer's clerk (petitioner). The SLSA had passed the order stating that the petitioner was showing strong symptoms of mental illness since he had written several letters to higher ups in the government and also the judiciary, making several allegations against the judges of the High Court.The High Court, however, disagreed."A person cannot be said to be suffering from mental illness only upon judging his behaviour or after going through certain communications made by the said person. I have perused the communications by the petitioner and it goes without saying that the contents of the letters are extremely disturbing, responsible, reckless and far from truth," Justice Sinha said in the order pronounced today. The bench noted that apart from the allegations made in the letter, there wasn't any other material which could conclusively prove or even remotely suggest that the petitioner was suffering from mental illness and required psychiatric help..The Court said that every individual must follow self-restraint and whenever they are aggrieved by the orders passed by the judges, they should challenge the same before higher courts and should not abuse or make reckless allegations against judges. "There are certain limitations which every individual ought to follow. If a litigant is aggrieved by any order passed by a judicial officer it is always open for him to challenge the same before a superior forum. A litigant cannot and should not make wild and untrue allegations against judges of this Court, who passed the orders. The same is not permissible. The said action of the petitioner cannot be supported or tolerated at all and is required to be dealt with a firm hand failing which the rule of law cannot be maintained," the High Court underscored. .By way of background, the petitioner was initially being provided free legal by the SLSA, but in November 2018 the SLSA sent a show cause notice to the petitioner seeking explanation on why the legal aid rendered to him should not be withdrawn in light of his conduct. He filed his response and subsequently and the Member Secretary of SLSA passed the order directing a psychiatric test of the petitioner.As ordered, the petitioner was allegedly detained by the police from the High Court compound and taken to a psychiatrist for tests and treatment. He alleged that he was illegally arrested by the police. He also argued that the order passed by the SLSA was without jurisdiction. .While dealing with the case, the High court learnt that the petitioner, currently a clerk with an advocate, was earlier a businessman but due to the continuous financial losses, he had to file multiple litigation before the Court. Since there was delay in disposal of his cases, he became a bit disoriented, which led to him raising allegations. The petitioner said that he did not intend to malign or disrepute the judges or the judiciary as a whole and, in fact, has great faith in the judiciary..Having heard the contentions, the bench noted that the petitioner was passing through severe financial crunch. "Out of despair and frustration on account of delayed disposal of his legal proceedings, the petitioner shot letters to the high ranking officials and also to the judges of this Court. The contents of the letters are undoubtedly derogatory, offensive, nasty, false and leaves a bad taste in the mouth but the same does not have anything to do with his mental health," the bench opined..The petitioner either wrote the letters himself or may have got it drafted by someone else, but the said letters appear to have been written in perfect sound mind to obtain the desired result. It does not appear that the communications have been made by any person suffering from any form of mental illness requiring medical assistance, the bench noted. "Possibly, it may be for this reason that the doctor who examined the petitioner on the first day failed to notice anything significant with regard to his mental health and advised routine tests to be done. It seems that it was a dirty ploy to draw attention of the Court for early disposal of the pending legal proceedings," the bench said. The judicial officer mistook the same as sign of mental illness. Since it is not proper for a judicial officer to comment upon the mental illness of a litigant, accordingly, the litigant was referred to a psychiatrist, the bench held..As far as the allegation of the illegal arrest was concerned, the bench opined that the cops might have applied some force to take him to the psychiatrist, but the allegation that he was arrested and taken into custody cannot be substantiated, the bench held.Justice Sinha, therefore, quashed the order passed by the SLSA but cautioned the petitioner not to repeat such behaviour in future."The petitioner is strictly warned and cautioned not to repeat such behaviour in future and he dare not point fingers at any judicial officer, far less; the judges of this Court, failing which serious consequences would follow," the Court made it clear..Advocates Pratyush Patwari, Suryasarathi Basu, Mita Ghosh (Das) appeared for the petitioner.Senior advocate Partha Sarathi Bhattacharya along with advocate A Sen represented SLSA.Advocates Ashim Kumar Ganguly and Karabi Roy represented the State..[Read Order]