Drag
Protecting the property rights of mentally ill individuals

BRIDGING THE LEGAL GAPS IN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT FOR MENTALLY ILL PERSONS


The management of property belonging to individuals with mental illnesses is a complex legal issue requiring a balance between protecting their interests and empowering their guardians. The legislative and judicial landscape surrounding this issue is marked by statutory lacunae and evolving interpretations, as highlighted in recent legal developments. The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 introduced significant reforms to align Indian mental health laws with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) and repealed the Mental Health Act of 1987. However, it left unresolved the critical issue of managing the property and finances of individuals with mental illnesses, resulting in a legal void and practical challenges.

The role of the 1987 Act


Under the repealed Mental Health Act 1987, Sections 52 and 53 allowed courts to appoint managers for individuals who could not take care of themselves or their property. These provisions protected the rights of mentally ill individuals, ensuring that their property was in responsible hands under judicial supervision. Section 126(2)(a) of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, preserves actions taken under the 1987 Act to the extent they are consistent with the new law. However, the absence of explicit provisions for property management creates a statutory vacuum that complicates matters for those seeking to act on behalf of mentally ill individuals.

Impact of the void


The absence of these important guidelines has been highlighted in Order dated March 22, 2023 in W.P. (C) no. 3607/2023 titled Shyam Malik v. State & Ors., wherein the petitioner, who was already designated as a guardian under the 1987 Act, sought permission to manage his mentally ill brother’s share of the family estate. However, the repeal of the earlier Act meant he could not execute a property agreement. The Delhi High Court acknowledged the issue, stating that the 2017 Act does not provide any process for appointing guardians to manage the property.

In another order in W.P. (C) 1271/2020, SD v. Government of NCT of Delhi, the court highlighted the same problem, noting that while the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 provides provisions wherein there is limited guardianship, it does not address situations requiring full-time support. This leaves mentally ill people at risk of financial exploitation.

Addressing the gap


Courts have tried to fill the gap using parens patriae jurisdiction which allows them to act in the best interests of those unable to care for themselves. For example, in Shyam Malik, the Delhi High Court allowed the petitioner to execute the property agreement. While it was helpful, such ad hoc judicial interference cannot replace a proper legal framework.

Challenges


Families which seek guardianship must rely on writ petitions which usually result in delays and inconsistent decisions. This increases the burden of the judiciary. The vulnerability of mentally ill individuals is evident in financial management due to no proper legal protection.

Conclusion


The lack of legal provisions for management of the property of mentally ill individuals is a very serious issue. It leaves families struggling for solutions and makes vulnerable individuals face financial instability and exploitation. The reformation of law is not just a necessity but also an obligation that would ensure justice and dignity for mentally ill individuals. It would also strengthen the public trust in the legal system.