HIGH COURT FEBRUARY 2025 WEEKLY ROUNDUP | Stories on Marital Rape; Peter England’s Trade mark; Maggie; MP Abdul Rashid’s parole; and more
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.
mental illness
No discrimination between mental and physical illness: Jharkhand High Court directs reimbursement for psychiatric treatment
Section 21(4) of Mental Healthcare Act provides that every insurer shall make provision for medical insurance for treatment of mental illness on the same basis as is provided for physical illness.
Allahabad HC grants divorce to couple living separately for over a decade; Cites continuous mental cruelty by wife
“The marriage between the parties becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties”
Dissolution as the Resolution: Use of Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in Appellate Jurisdiction(s)
by Ravi Shankar* and Akanksha Natesan**
‘Mental illness not a choice’; Delhi High Court reinstates SSB constable dismissed from service for attempting suicide
“Section 115 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 raises a statutory presumption that any person who attempts to commit suicide shall be presumed to have severe stress and shall not be tried and punished under the Penal Code, 1860.”
Telangana High Court upholds CRPF personnel’s termination on grounds of mental illness and depression
“In an organisation like CRPF, which is India’s largest paramilitary Force, a member with a mental condition cannot be expected to perform his duties with utmost commitment and discipline.”
Delhi High Court dismisses PIL seeking implementation of Mental Healthcare Act in educational institutions
The Court passed no further orders considering the information provided in the Status Report and the measures taken by the authorities concerned towards the implementation of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017.
Determination of ‘mental illness’ as per S. 105 of the Mental Healthcare, 2017 cannot be prejudicial to interest of any party: Delhi High Court
“The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 is a special Act and by virtue of Section 120 of the said Act, the same has been given an overriding effect with respect to any other law for the time being in force.”
Guardianship of Individuals with Special Needs : India’s Evolving Legal Regime
by Aditi Sharma† and Vatsal Singh††
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 37
Child suffering from mental illness, requires a disability certificate, can certifying authority insist him to come to premises of institution? Madras HC analyses
Madras High Court: G.R. Swaminathan, J., held that the persons suffering from mental retardation or mental illness are entitled to have the
Ker HC | Is not taking treatment for mental illness to bring out a peaceful family atmosphere a form of cruelty and thus, a ground for divorce? HC answers
Kerala High Court: In an interesting case the Division Bench of A.Muhamed Mustaque and C.R. Sophy Thomas, JJ., held that not taking
4 Reasons why HC found person with ‘bipolar disorder’ to be fit to discharge responsibilities as ‘Judicial Officer’: Read how last year Del HC outrightly denied ‘discrimination’ in employment against person with disability
Delhi High Court: The Division Bench of Vipin Sanghi and Sanjeev Narula, JJ., decided a matter while reasoning out on why a
Nirbhaya Gang Rape and Murder Case | Response sought from Tihar Jail authorities on convict Vinay’s plea for medical treatment regarding mental illness
As reported by PTI, One of the Convicts in the Nirbhaya Case named Vinay filed a petition seeking medical treatment. For the
Utt HC | Denial of mental illness has to be supported by evidence to rebut allegations; Divorce upheld as wife was unable to produce any substantial evidence
Uttaranchal High Court: A Division Bench of Alok Singh and Ravindra Maithani, JJ. entertained an appeal filed by the appellant-wife who challenged
Post-conviction mental health & it’s effect on sentencing: SC issues directions
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, MM Shantanagoudar and Indira Banerjee, JJ held “it needs to be understood that prisoners