KOCHI: When the Mental Healthcare Act of 2017 came into effect in India, it recommended state governments form a state mental health authority (SMHA) — a statutory body that would carry out quality checks at mental health institutions, provide licences and install general policies and regulations. The act also directed the state authorities to form a semi-judicial body titled mental health review board (MHRB). Five such boards were to be constituted in Kerala.
However, a year after it was founded, the SMHA in Kerala has not convened a meeting even once, say its members. The laxity of the state government in ensuring the smooth functioning of a board that supervises mental health services is a concern among beneficiaries.
The rules insist the SMHA to hold four meetings annually. The members alleged that though the committee was to pick office-bearers of five MHRBs in the state, it doesn’t have a single psychiatrist in its fold.
“The gazette stipulates that the chairperson should be a district judge, an officer of the state judicial services qualified to be appointed as district judges or a retired district judge. He/she must be accompanied by a psychiatrist and a medical practitioner. Two mental health survivors, caregivers or persons representing organisations that care for people with mental illness should also be present on the board. However, bypassing all that, a new gazette was published. The board then took two deputy secretaries (one from health and another from law), and a non-psychiatrist from the health service,” said Dr C J John, an SMHA member.
Dr John and two other members of the authority questioned this appointment and wrote to the principal secretary, who is the chairman of the MHA. They also contested the same in the High Court, where the division bench stated that the procedure was wrong and asked to review the term administrative secretariat.
Advocate Litto Palathingal, who appeared for the complainants, said the judgment itself was proof that the government failed to carry out proper appointments.
“The judgment was regarding the appointment of the CEO. The 1987 Act, which is the predecessor of the 2017 Act, stipulates professional qualification — having a postgraduate degree in psychiatry and three years of experience in the field of psychiatry. Instead, the government order limited the scope to just a person in the deputy secretary rank, without considering the academic qualification,” he said. The CEO post was given to a person who came through general transfer and not a medical practitioner.
The SMHA was formed after the Kerala Legal Services Authority contested in the High Court that the Mental Health Care Act was not practised in Kerala. “There is no representation of the State Mental Health Authority or of any professional bodies like the Indian Psychiatric Society in this important selection committee. The collective responsibility of a duly constituted body has been sadly ignored,” Dr John said.
As per direction of the High Court, the State Mental Health Authority was constituted in January 2021 with a gazette notification. Two vacancies are yet to be filled up
No meeting of the SMHA has been called for in this one year, even though as per section 56 of MHCA, there shall be at least four meetings annually
High Court dismissed the procedure as wrong and asked to review the term administrative secretariat
Five Mental Health Review Boards have to be formed in the state but a selection committee was formed without consulting the SMHA and without a single psychiatrist the law