Bombay HC finds 20-year-old US citizen alert, rejects parents’ plea for evaluation – Times of India

MUMBAI: Bombay high court dismissed a couple’s petition which sought directions for a health expert’s evaluation to “safeguard the interest and mental health” of their child, an over 20-year-old US citizen who came to India to study in 2019 and has been here since.
The parents, also permanent US inhabitants but currently in the city, had invoked the high court’s plenary powers and the Mental Healthcare Act of 2017 for a writ of habeas corpus to produce ‘S’ (name given by HC to the child to protect identity) as they expressed grave concern after seeing a “sudden” and “disturbing personality change accompanied by irrational anger” last year.
A bench of Justices S S Shinde and N J Jamadar, in their August 25 order, after speaking and interacting with the child of the petitioners (whose names too the HC withheld), said, “We do not find any justifiable material which makes out a strong prima facie case that requires such evaluation.”
The parents said the child had come to India from the US to pursue a course at an academy near Mumbai in November 2019. In the second half of last year they became “alarmed” at the communication they received from their child and “threats” of harm to self and others. The parents said they petitioned the HC as their efforts to persuade officers of the state to act “turned futile”. Their petition through Jaykar & Partners also focused on Section 100 of the Mental Healthcare Act which “casts a duty on every officer in-charge of a police station to take under protection any person whom he has reason to believe to be suffering from mental illness”.
The judges interacted with ‘S’ for a “fair length” in chamber at the first hearing and suggested mediation between child and parents to bridge their distance. ‘S’ declined consent for a mediation process on August 6 and the parents’ senior counsel D Khambata with Mohan Jaykar said directions for an expert evaluation is warranted, given their concern.
Khambata argued that choice of words “betray a deep problem, which ‘S’ appears to be grappling with’’ and cited a certificate by a doctor that suggested presence of a behavioural disorder linked to “depressive features”.The HC gave the matter its “anxious consideration’’ and found ‘S’ to be “mentally alert and fully alive to developments unfolding around’’ with a “strong sense of individuality’’ to live life on own terms.
The HC said ‘S’ expressed regret for some alarming communication and “took full responsibility for actions’’ pursued. It said “it seems relentless efforts’’ by the parents to wean away ‘S’ from the course alienated them further. It said Supreme Court requires the court to “see to it that a person’s right to defend himself must be adequately protected” and cannot order a “roving inquiry’’. Having interacted with ‘S’, HC said it was “unable to infer” need for an evaluation.