IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2011 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 6069 of 2011(G) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- K.P.VARKEY, KUYILAMPARAYIL HOUSE, MONIPPALLY P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-685 001. 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 001. 3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 631. 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KURAVILANGADU, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 633. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.6069/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF PETITION DATED 20.10.2010 FILED BY THE SON-IN-LAW OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF LETTER DATED 24.11.2010SENT BY 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3: COPY OF PETITION DATED 16.12.2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHIEF MINISTER WITH COPY TO THE RESPONDENTS. /TRUE COPY/ PS TO JUDGE R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No. 6069 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant, J. Petitioner, a person aged 73 years, has come to this Court complaining that his son, Saji is mentally ill and is refusing to undergo treatment. According to the petitioner, the life of the petitioner is in danger. His son, who is mentally ill, is likely to assault and attack him. His son deserves treatment. He has to be taken to the mental hospital. The son is refusing to take treatment at the mental hospital. Relatives are not helping the petitioner. In these circumstances, the petitioner seeks direction under Article 226 of the Constitution to the police to enable him to take his son to the mental hospital. Simultaneously, there is a prayer that the petitioner apprehends danger from his son and therefore, he is entitled to be granted police protection. 2. Surprisingly the son, who is a necessary party, has not been arrayed as party to this petition. Government Pleader took notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 5. The learned Government Pleader, after taking instructions, submits that the police officials are not satisfied that the petitioner's son, Saji is a criminal lunatic and any action WP(C).6069/11 2 deserves to be taken against him on that score. According to the respondents, police officials, there is a dispute between the petitioner and the said son, Saji. That dispute is a property dispute. The son of the petitioner, in the assessment of the police officials, is not mentally challenged or insane at any rate. The respondents hence do not feel the necessity to take the said son of the petitioner against his will to the mental hospital. If the petitioner feels that the petitioner's son is suffering from any such mental illness, the petitioner may be directed to initiate proceedings under the Mental Health Act. The police do not, think it necessary now, to afford police protection to the petitioner to take his son to the mental hospital against the wishes and desires of the said son. So far as the alleged apprehension of the petitioner of danger from his son is concerned, the learned Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the police officials, submits that no complaint has so far been received of any such culpable acts on the part of the said son against the petitioner. If there is any allegation of commission and threat of commission of any crime by the said son against the petitioner, the needful shall be done and appropriate and necessary action shall be taken by the police. Instead of approaching the court under the provisions of the Mental Health Act, the petitioner cannot seek a direction to compel the police to afford protection to the petitioner to take his son to the mental hospital, submits the learned Government Pleader. WP(C).6069/11 3 3. We find merit in the objection raised by the learned Government Pleader. The petitioner appears to feel that the son is mentally ill. The son is not accepting the same. The police officials are not convinced that the petitioner's son deserves treatment in the mental hospital against his wish and desire. 4. In these circumstances, the petitioner must be directed to initiate proceedings under the Mental Health Act, if he continues to feel that his son requires treatment for his mental illness even against the consent of the son. 5. As regards the alleged threat to the person of the petitioner from his allegedly mentally ill son is concerned, we accept the submission of the learned Government Pleader that in the absence of any allegations at the moment of commission of any such culpable acts on the part of the son of the petitioner, no specific direction need be issued. We do further accept the submission of the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents that if there be any allegation of commission of threat of commission of culpable acts by the son of the petitioner, the respondents shall take necessary action. 6. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that no specific direction under Article 226 of the Constitution need or deserves to be issued now. WP(C).6069/11 4 This Writ Petition is , in these circumstances, dismissed with the above observations. R.BASANT, JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE vgs