Mental Health and Right to Treatment: Emerging Supreme Court Jurisprudence

03 October, 2025

Share on:

Introduction

For a long time, mental health was characterized as a silent concern that was whispered amongst the family members and widely ignored by the public health policy. According to a report of the World Health Organization (WHO), India accounts for nearly 15% of the global mental health condition, and 1 in 7 Indians has experienced some sort of mental health disorder. Yet, the laws regarding Mental Health Treatment were weak.

The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, was introduced, promising dignity, non-discrimination, and access to mental healthcare. Though there was a law, it only existed on paper, and there was no proper implementation, and the resources were scarce. It all changed in July 2025 when the Supreme Court made the Right to Mental Health care a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court made it the responsibility of the State to handle this with diligence to ensure access to treatment. This was the beginning of the new Jurisprudential Chapter, the Right to Mental Health Care is no longer a welfare manifestation but a Fundamental entitlement.

The Right to Health in India 

The right to healthcare is never exclusively mentioned in the constitution, although it is implied under Article 21- Right to Life and the Directive Principles of the State Policy Article 36(e), 42, and 47. In the case of Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity vs. State of West Bengal. The court emphasized that the state cannot deny any emergency medical treatment.

The early cases only focused on physical health and mental health remained unnoticed. But the decision of 2025 had made Mental health apparent, bridging the gap of constitutional rights with Mental Healthcare, making the Right to treatment enforceable and justiciable.

The Mental HealthCare Act 2017

When the Mental Healthcare Act was enforced in 2017, there were some features introduced. They are 

1. Right to Access Mental Health Care (Section - 18) - Everyone has the Right to affordable and accessible quality treatment.
2. Decriminalization of Suicide (Section-  115) - Every individual who attempts suicide needs treatment and not punishment
3. Patient autonomy and consent -  Every treatment needs consent except for those who are in an emergency situation or when they lack competency.
4. Mental Health Review Boards (MHRBs) - It is a quasi-judicial body that oversees the treatment and reviews the rights of the patients.

However, many State Governments failed to introduce MHRBs and deterred patients from seeking care. Without the constitutional backing, the statutory implementations remained unattended.

The Judgment of the Supreme Court in 2025: Mental Health as a Fundamental Right 

In Sukdeb Saha v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2025), the Supreme Court first recognized Mental health as an integral part of Article 21. The case arose due to the academic negligence of the coaching institutions pressurizing students, which led to tragic outcomes.

The key contributions of the court were, 

1. Mental Health is not a concept of charity or welfare, but a fundamental constitutional right.
2. Educational institutions, workplaces, and other similar institutions must take proactive measures to safeguard Mental health under their care.
3. It is the duty of the state not just to give treatment for mental health care but to ensure that the institutions are not causing mental distress.

This judgment of the court not just makes Mental Health an individual care, but a collective responsibility.

The Actual Meaning of Right to Treatment after 2025

The jurisprudence of the Right to health has 2 dimensions 

1. Immediate duty to provide life-saving treatment
2. A progressive duty to provide a strong healthcare infrastructure.

With Healthcare being a constitutional right now, 

1. If a person faces an acute mental distress like suicidal thoughts or severe depression, the state has to ensure immediate access to treatment. The Courts can order the hospitals to admit a patient, arrange a therapy, or even make a convenient transfer to the appropriate facility.
2. Not just acting in the situation of emergencies, the state has to train more psychiatrists, introduce a section exclusively for mental therapy in the primary healthcare centres, and allocate its budgets accordingly. The direction of the Supreme Court to the Schools and Universities highlights the systematic dimension that has to be followed.
3. There is also the duty of the state to protect the dignity and autonomy of the Patients. The constitutional right does not mean that the state has an unlimited power to impose treatments. The act governs the consent of the patient or the alternatively, giving proper assessments and providing less restrictive alternatives. There must be a balance between Personal Liberty and treatment needs.

The Prone Challenges while inculcating Mental Healthcare

1. Scarcity of resources - For a population of more than 1 billion, India has fewer than 10,000 psychiatrists. Unless there are expansions of training and proper infrastructure, the provision will remain challenged.
2. Unless the States introduce MHRCBs to govern this sector, there will be a challenge of accountability faced.
3. There will always remain a question of involuntary treatment on when the state should intervene.
4. The direction of the court applies to schools, universities, and workplaces, but the effective monitoring of the penalties is still in question.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court guidelines of 2025 are a milestone for Mental Healthcare in India. For the  First time, Mental health being embodied with the constitution is not a matter of privilege but that of the fundamental right. This effect shows that Mental Health matters, and the dignity of the person also includes psychological well-being, and the state has a mandatory duty to protect it. The law has finally caught up to the fact that there is no health without mental health, and there is no right without the right to treatment.