No person under defense service shall be subjected to treatment alleging mental disorder, under the guise of indiscipline or insubordination, without proper care and caution.
Google+ Facebook Twitter Email PrintFriendly Addthis

Contents

  1. 1 The above writ petition is preferred to issue a writ of mandamus or any direction or order to the respondents, to immediately stop the treatment to the petitioner's husband and permit him to proceed on leave or alternatively shift him to any Government Hospital for further investigation and also prayed to issue a writ of mandamus or any direction or order to the respondents, to stop harassing the petitioner's husband and conduct proper investigation to the complaint lodged.
    1. 1.1 11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case and in view of various interim orders passed by this Court during the course of the above proceedings and in view of the present state of affairs, this Court does not propose to enter into any finding on merits on the rival contentions, especially in the light of the submission of the learned counsel for the contesting respondents that the main grievances of the petitioner are redressed. We also find that as on today, the relief sought for requires no consideration as such. However, it is the considered opinion of this Court that, especially in the light of the above referred report of the NIMHANS, if this Court had not timely interfered in the matter, the husband of the petitioner would have been kept in the custody of the Naval officials, under the guise of mental disorder in the INHS Sanjeevani at Kochi, and that would have amounted to illegal confinement. The NIMHANS authorities have categorically found and reported that the husband of the petitioner has no psychiatric illness and no evidence of any such illness could be determined, but he is suffering from Idiopathic Generalized Epilepsy (IGE) Syndrome. So, the allegations of the Naval authorities and the compulsory treatment attempted to be given to the husband of the petitioner as an inpatient was absolutely incorrect and unwarranted. However, due to timely intervention of this court, the husband of the petitioner was taken from INHS Sanjivani (Naval Hospital) and he was thoroughly examined by NIMHANS and thus now it is revealed that the husband of the petitioner has no psychic problem at present. The expert of the NIMHANS certainly came to say about the current mental status and health conditions of the husband of the petitioner. Thus, by order dated 11.12.2014, which we indicated earlier, we directed the contesting respondents to restore the leave already granted to the husband of the petitioner as per Ext.R4(g) w.e.f. 11.12.2014 for a period of 26 days and subsequently cancelled by the respondents. However, subsequently, as per Annexure R4(j), the husband of the petitioner is intended to enter on leave only for 21 days inclusive of the up and down journey days. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary to correct the period of leave for the petitioner as 21 days from 11.12.2014 instead of 26 days as mentioned in our order dated 11.12.2014. Accordingly, we direct the Naval authorities to restore the leave already granted as per Ext.R4(g) proceedings and the husband of the petitioner is permitted to enter on casual leave for 21 days w.e.f. 11.12.2014 and he is directed to report for duty in the INS, Kattabomman, on the expiry of the above 21 days casual leave. In view of the opinion expressed by the doctors of NIMHANS in the report of Mr.Sahu, as the husband of the petitioner is suffering from Idiopathic Generalized Epilepsy (IGE) Syndrome, it is for the contesting respondents to decide whether the husband of the petitioner can report for duty on expiry of his casual leave as ordered above and whether he is fit enough to engage in the same service/work which he was doing prior to the entire episode or to entrust him with ministerial work in any of the office of Navy in accordance with their regulation and pattern of service, since we are of the view that, a person suffering from IGE Syndrome is not advisable to handle weapons whether it is sophisticated or not.
    2. 1.2 12. At this juncture, this Court is constrained to observe that 'Indian Navy' is one of the components of Indian Defense. We are proud of our Indian Navy and its role in defending this Nation against the attack of enemical countries and their dedicated service to protect this country and its citizen. It is not out of contest to state that, unlike in other countries, Defense service is not compulsory as far as Indian citizens are concerned. So, Indian citizens are out of their patriotism, dedicated themselves to defend India and thereby, become part of any of the defense components. Therefore, it is for the Naval authorities to see that any incidents, like the present one, from the part of its officials shall not affect the morality, credibility and discipline of Indian Navy and so as to drive out our youth from serving the Nation through our Defense Establishments. So, it is for the higher Naval authorities to look into the matter and to see that no incidents, which will adversely affect the reputation and integrity of Indian Navy, are repeated. It is needless to say, no person under our defense service shall be subjected to treatment alleging mental disorder, under the guise of indiscipline or insubordination, without proper care and caution, and we hope that strict guidelines will be formulated and issued to secure the same by the higher authorities of Navy, in the light of this unfortunate incident. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Admiral of Indian Navy for his perusal.  

(2015) 396 KLW 422

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM 

PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL 

SATURDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/29TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936 

WP(C).No. 28450 of 2014 (E)

PETITIONER(S)

AARTI SAHU 

BY ADVS.SRI.V.K.SATHYANATHAN SRI.JOHN T.PAUL 

RESPONDENT(S)

1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001.

2. THE CHIEF OF THE NAVAL STAFF, NAVY HEAD QUARTERS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001.

3. THE NAVY HOSPITAL-INHS SANJEEVANI,REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMANDANT,INHS SANJEEVANI, NAVAL BASE, KOCHI-682 004.

4. THE COMMANDING OFFICER, INS KATTABOMMAN, SOUTH VIJAYANARAYANAM, TIRUNELVELI, T.N.-627 119. 

5. THE SUPERINTENDENT, COCHIN GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE. 

6. THE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH AND NEURO SCIENCES, BANGALORE. 

R1-R4 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL SMT.PINKY ANAND, ADDL.SOLICITOR GENERAL Sr.Adv.SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR SRI.TOM JOSE PADINJAREKKARA, ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION. (ADDL.R7 sought to be impleaded) BY ADV.SMT.SUSAN JOHN PUTHUSSERIL) (PARTY IN PERSON). 

 J U D G M E N T 

Mohanan, J. 

The above writ petition is preferred to issue a writ of mandamus or any direction or order to the respondents, to immediately stop the treatment to the petitioner's husband and permit him to proceed on leave or alternatively shift him to any Government Hospital for further investigation and also prayed to issue a writ of mandamus or any direction or order to the respondents, to stop harassing the petitioner's husband and conduct proper investigation to the complaint lodged.

2. The petitioner averred and claimed that, she is the wife of a Navy employee, namely Sri.Sunil Kumar Sahu and she is constrained to approach this Court aggrieved by the compulsory medical treatment inflicted upon her husband by his employer. According to the petitioner, her husband had joined in the Navy service on 31.1.2004 and successfully completed 2 years training as Shipwright and worked at Visakhapattanam, Mumbai, Karwar and presently posted at Tirunelveli. It is also claimed by the petitioner that her husband was adjudged as, 'The best in overall order of merit' and 'The best in academic training'. Thus according to the petitioner, her husband has got more than 10 years of successful career in the employment.

3. According to the petitioner, her husband was transferred to Tirunelveli from Karwar during the year 2013 and while working there, the husband of the petitioner came across the organised corrupt practises of other employees and he put up a written complaint to the Chief Vigilance Officer of Navy and he also put up certain other complaints thereafter. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the written complaint submitted by the husband of the petitioner irritated the higher officials of Indian Navy and thus he was called to the office of the 4th respondent on 20.10.2014 and threatened him of compulsorily admitting him in the hospital as a mental patient. Because of the above threat, according to the petitioner, she had lodged a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Vijayanarayanam Police Station and District Collector on 21.10.2014 through speed post. Ext.P2 is one of such complaints. Ext.P3 is the acknowledgement receipt of the complaint issued from the local police station at Vijayanarayanam.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that on 21.10.2014, the petitioner's husband was called to the office of the 4th respondent at 6 p.m., under the pretext that there was some urgent work and on entering the office room, his mobile phone was forcefully snatched, a charge sheet was readout and thereafter he was arrested and pushed in the Naval lock-up. Thereafter, a Medical Officer of the Navy was called to the lock-up and on the order of the 4th respondent, a referral note was made referring the petitioner's husband to INHS Sanjivani (Naval Hospital), Kochi. Thus, the petitioner's husband was escorted by two Guards and he has been treated like a criminal. It is also alleged that in the wee hours, he was taken to Cochin by car, escorted by 4 co-employees and thereafter he was compulsorily admitted in the 3rd respondent hospital and he was forcibly subjected to treatment. It is also pointed that before 40 days to the above date, the petitioner's husband was sanctioned/granted with leave from 27.10.2014 onwards, based on which, the petitioner and her husband got railway reservations to go to the native place. Subsequently, connected with the above incident, leave was cancelled on the above alleged observation. According to the petitioner, to the act of the respondents, the incident has got widespread publicity and media attention ; and therefore the respondents released Ext.P4 press note dated 26.10.2014. In short, the allegation is that the petitioner's husband is under the illegal confinement, under the guise that he is a psychiatric patient and the petitioner's husband has no access outside the hospital and virtually confined in a cell. Thereby, the petitioner's husband is deprived of company of his family. According to the petitioner, under the above situation, she preferred the above writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying interalia to issue a writ of mandamus or any direction or order to the respondents, to immediately stop the treatment to the petitioner's husband and permit him to proceed on leave or alternatively shift him to any Government Hospital for further investigation and also prayed to issue a writ of mandamus or any direction or order to the respondents, to stop harassing the petitioner's husband and conduct proper investigation to the complaint lodged.

5. We have heard Sri.K.Ramakumar, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents and we have also heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 

6. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents on 11.12.2014, we have issued the following order : 

"In terms of the order dated 8.12.2014 of this Court, the husband of the petitioner Mr.Sahu, after got discharged from NIMHANS, is produced before this Court at 10.15 a.m. today.

2. We have heard Sri.K.Ramakumar, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents and we have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

3. In view of the report furnished by the NIMHANS, we are satisfied that the petitioner's husband has no psychiatric problem currently. So, according to us, the writ petition can be closed. But considering the facts and circumstances involved in the case, to normalise the situation, we are of the view that it is better for the petitioner's husband to enter leave. Accordingly, we direct the Naval authorities to restore the leave already granted to him as per Annexure R4(g) with effect from 11.12.2014 for a period of 26 days including the travelling time. After leave, he will have to report before the INS, Kattabomman. Today, the petitioner's husband need not be taken to the Navy Hospital INHS Sanjeevani and he can enter into leave now itself. The judgment in the above writ petition is reserved for orders. " 

Accordingly, the matter was taken up for judgment. Thereafter, respondents 1 to 4 in the above writ petition filed I.A.No.17273/14 with a prayer to accept a document produced as Ext.R4(j) as forming part of records of this writ petition. Consequently, we suo motu posted the matter on 18.12.2014 in the Court, as "to be spoken to". We heard the above petition. The petitioner in the above writ petition being the 1st respondent in the above I.A. has no objection in accepting the said petition and thus by a separate order dated 18.12.2014, we allowed the said petition. Accordingly, the document produced, forms part of records of this writ petition as Ext.R4(j). Thereafter, the case was posted to this date for judgment.

7. Read all the interim orders passed by this court during the proceedings in the above writ petition as part of this judgment. Though the above writ petition was filed on 29.10.2014, the contesting respondents herein filed the counter affidavit only on 19.11.2014, before which, we have passed several interim orders. In the counter affidavit filed by the contesting respondents, they mainly contended that the above writ petition is not maintainable as no fundamental right of the petitioner or her husband has been alleged to be breached by the acts of the respondents, especially when no fundamental right of the petitioner or her husband is infringed. It is also the contention of the respondents that the relief sought for, cannot be granted by this Court under the writ jurisdiction of this Court. It is also contended that no prayer for the issuance of habeas corpus writ also would lie in the given facts and circumstances involved in the case. According to the respondents, the husband of the petitioner has become unruly, disobedient, indisciplined and has also been observed to be filing frivolous and unfounded allegations against the superior authorities. Thus, the specific stand taken by the respondents, against the allegation that the husband of the petitioner was forcefully admitted in INHS Sanjivani (Naval Hospital) and given unnecessary treatment, is that the petitioner's husband was under treatment for seizure disorder (epilepsy) and low back ache. According to the contesting respondents, the husband of the petitioner is an old case of seizures since the year 2011, for which he was taking tablets sodium valproate and tablet folic acid. So, according to the respondents, the husband of the petitioner was admitted in INHS Sanjivani (Naval Hospital) for a routine check up, as he was suffering from epilepsy.

8. On the date of filing of the writ petition itself, the same came up for consideration before another Bench and a learned Single Judge of this Court, on 29.10.2014 itself, passed an interim order and in the said order, the learned Single Judge has observed in paragraph 4 that, "Be that as it may, this writ petition does not involve any service dispute, as such. It is, in my considered view, in the nature of Habeas Corpus required to be heard by a designated Bench of appropriate strength." Accordingly, the learned Single Judge directed the Registry to place the matter before the Honourable the Acting Chief Justice for necessary directions and thus the matter came up before this Bench on 30.10.2014.

9. Thus, we directed the 3rd respondent to produce the husband of the petitioner, namely Sunil Kumar Sahu at 3 p.m. on 30.10.2014 itself and the 3rd respondent was directed to produce the medical records with respect to the treatment of the petitioner's husband. We have also availed the service of a Psychiatrist to examine the husband of the petitioner at 3 p.m. on that day. Thereafter, the husband of the petitioner was ordered to be admitted in the Cochin Government Medical College for observation and treatment, and we have suo motu impleaded the Superintendent of Cochin Government Medical College, as additional 5th respondent. Since the report filed by the additional 5th respondent was in conflict with the report furnished by Dr.Aniamma George, the Consultant Psychiatrist, General Hospital, Ernakulam, who examined the husband of the petitioner on 30.10.2014, we directed the 3rd respondent to admit the husband of the petitioner at NIMHANS and we have suo motu impleaded the Director, National Institute of Medical Health and Neuro Sciences, Institute of National Importance, Bangalore, as additional 6th respondent, by order dated 6.11.2014 and by the very same order, the additional 6th respondent was directed to furnish an expert and independent opinion, after subjecting the husband of the petitioner for observation, about his mental condition by constituting a Board of expert Doctors. Thus, the additional 6th respondent by his letter No.NIMH/HOS/MS/2014-15 dated 21.11.2014 submitted that, after admitting the petitioner's husband on 9.11.2014 in NIMHANS, he was being evaluated under the department of Psychiatry and it was further informed to the Registrar that the Medical Board will be examining the patient on 25.11.2014 and would be submitting its opinion to this Court by 28.11.2014. Thus, finally, the additional 6th respondent by his letter No.NIMH/HOS/MS/2014-15 dated 27.11.2014, forwarded the proceedings of the Medical Board in respect of Sri.Sunil Kumar Sahu-the husband of the petitioner. In the above report, it is specifically reported as follows : 

"During the course of stay, a detailed evaluation and assessment was conducted for Mr.Sahu. Information was obtained from Mr.Sahu, his wife and his mother. Additionally, information as provided by the Honourable High Court was reviewed. The evaluation and assessment included obtaining a history of the circumstances which led to the current admission, details of the prior admissions, ongoing serial mental state examinations and behavioural observations in the ward, objective psychological testing, cognitive function testing, relevant blood investigations, Electroencephalogram (EEG) and MRI brain. The clinical assessment of his mental status included three independent interviews conducted by consultant psychiatrists. He also undergone a Neurological evaluation for his seizure disorder. The Medical Board after taking into consideration the findings from the above assessments, observations during his current stay at NIMHANS and face to face assessment of Mr.Sahu in the presence of his wife, opines that Mr.Sahu suffers from Idiopathic Generalized Epilepsy (IGE) Syndrome and that no evidence of any current psychiatric illness could be determined. Mr.Sahu is deemed fit to discharge from NIMHANS." 

On receiving the above report, we issued the following order on 8.12.2014. 

"The Registry is directed to furnish a copy of the report dated 27.11.2014 of NIMHANS to the counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 4 forthwith and also to the learned Director General of Prosecution. Since the NIMHANS authorities reported that Mr.Sahu, the husband of the petitioner, is fit to be discharged from NIMHANS, the 3rd respondent is directed to produce Mr.Sahu before this Court on 11.12.2014 after getting discharged from NIMHANS. Post on 11.12.2014." 

Thus, the matter was taken on 11.12.2014 and we have heard Sri.K.Ramakumar, the learned senior counsel for the contesting respondents, in the light of the above referred report of the NIMHANS. We have also heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

10. The learned Senior counsel, after taking us through the prayer portion of the writ petition, has submitted that, whatever grievances projected by the petitioner in this writ petition have been redressed. In order to substantiate the above submission, the learned senior counsel has pointed out that the complaints preferred by the husband of the petitioner against the Naval officials and the employees, were considered by the Naval authorities and a Special Board or Team has been constituted to enquire into such complaints. According to the learned counsel, as per the order of this Court, the husband of the petitioner was released from INHS Sanjeevani at Kochi and at present, he is not under the custody of anybody. The learned senior counsel though submitted that no further orders are necessary in the above writ petition, the contention raised by him about the maintainability of the above writ petition and the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain such a writ petition, can be referred in the judgment, though no further proceedings are warranted in the above writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the report of the NIMHANS authorities shows that the grievances projected in the above writ petition and the allegations raised by the petitioner against the NIMHANS officers are correct and there is every possibility to continue the intimidation and harassment against the husband of the petitioner from the part of the Naval officials, unless this Court issue appropriate directions.

11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case and in view of various interim orders passed by this Court during the course of the above proceedings and in view of the present state of affairs, this Court does not propose to enter into any finding on merits on the rival contentions, especially in the light of the submission of the learned counsel for the contesting respondents that the main grievances of the petitioner are redressed. We also find that as on today, the relief sought for requires no consideration as such. However, it is the considered opinion of this Court that, especially in the light of the above referred report of the NIMHANS, if this Court had not timely interfered in the matter, the husband of the petitioner would have been kept in the custody of the Naval officials, under the guise of mental disorder in the INHS Sanjeevani at Kochi, and that would have amounted to illegal confinement. The NIMHANS authorities have categorically found and reported that the husband of the petitioner has no psychiatric illness and no evidence of any such illness could be determined, but he is suffering from Idiopathic Generalized Epilepsy (IGE) Syndrome. So, the allegations of the Naval authorities and the compulsory treatment attempted to be given to the husband of the petitioner as an inpatient was absolutely incorrect and unwarranted. However, due to timely intervention of this court, the husband of the petitioner was taken from INHS Sanjivani (Naval Hospital) and he was thoroughly examined by NIMHANS and thus now it is revealed that the husband of the petitioner has no psychic problem at present. The expert of the NIMHANS certainly came to say about the current mental status and health conditions of the husband of the petitioner. Thus, by order dated 11.12.2014, which we indicated earlier, we directed the contesting respondents to restore the leave already granted to the husband of the petitioner as per Ext.R4(g) w.e.f. 11.12.2014 for a period of 26 days and subsequently cancelled by the respondents. However, subsequently, as per Annexure R4(j), the husband of the petitioner is intended to enter on leave only for 21 days inclusive of the up and down journey days. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary to correct the period of leave for the petitioner as 21 days from 11.12.2014 instead of 26 days as mentioned in our order dated 11.12.2014. Accordingly, we direct the Naval authorities to restore the leave already granted as per Ext.R4(g) proceedings and the husband of the petitioner is permitted to enter on casual leave for 21 days w.e.f. 11.12.2014 and he is directed to report for duty in the INS, Kattabomman, on the expiry of the above 21 days casual leave. In view of the opinion expressed by the doctors of NIMHANS in the report of Mr.Sahu, as the husband of the petitioner is suffering from Idiopathic Generalized Epilepsy (IGE) Syndrome, it is for the contesting respondents to decide whether the husband of the petitioner can report for duty on expiry of his casual leave as ordered above and whether he is fit enough to engage in the same service/work which he was doing prior to the entire episode or to entrust him with ministerial work in any of the office of Navy in accordance with their regulation and pattern of service, since we are of the view that, a person suffering from IGE Syndrome is not advisable to handle weapons whether it is sophisticated or not.

12. At this juncture, this Court is constrained to observe that 'Indian Navy' is one of the components of Indian Defense. We are proud of our Indian Navy and its role in defending this Nation against the attack of enemical countries and their dedicated service to protect this country and its citizen. It is not out of contest to state that, unlike in other countries, Defense service is not compulsory as far as Indian citizens are concerned. So, Indian citizens are out of their patriotism, dedicated themselves to defend India and thereby, become part of any of the defense components. Therefore, it is for the Naval authorities to see that any incidents, like the present one, from the part of its officials shall not affect the morality, credibility and discipline of Indian Navy and so as to drive out our youth from serving the Nation through our Defense Establishments. So, it is for the higher Naval authorities to look into the matter and to see that no incidents, which will adversely affect the reputation and integrity of Indian Navy, are repeated. It is needless to say, no person under our defense service shall be subjected to treatment alleging mental disorder, under the guise of indiscipline or insubordination, without proper care and caution, and we hope that strict guidelines will be formulated and issued to secure the same by the higher authorities of Navy, in the light of this unfortunate incident. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Admiral of Indian Navy for his perusal.