Kerala High Court: In a matter concerning the proposed reconsideration of the nomenclature of Mental Health Centres, with a view to addressing the stigma associated with mental healthcare institutions and promoting the dignity, welfare and social inclusion of vulnerable patients, a Division Bench of Devan Ramachandran and Basant Balaji, JJ. emphasised that the nomenclature of institutions providing mental healthcare should not perpetuate stigma against vulnerable patients. The Court observed that the issue should not be approached as an adversarial dispute, but from the perspective of patient welfare, dignity, and community welfare. The Court directed the Government to examine the suggestion for reconsidering the existing designation of “Mental Health Centres” and to inform the Court of its decision.
Background
The matter was concerned with an issue relating to the terminology and public perception surrounding institutions presently designated as “Mental Health Centres”. During the proceedings, the amicus curiae, brought to the Court’s attention the stigma associated with the expression “Mental Health Centres”, particularly in the context of the treatment and rehabilitation of persons requiring mental healthcare. The concern was also informed by the Court’s own recent visits to such Centres, during which the Bench observed the stigma attached to their existing nomenclature.
Analysis and Decision
The Court did not prescribe any particular alternative name but considered the issue to be one of significant contemporary relevance. The Court observed that other healthcare institutions are not generally identified by terms such as “Centres of Physical Health” and questioned why institutions dealing with mental healthcare should continue to carry a label that may reinforce stigma surrounding a particular category of illness or disorder.
The Court acknowledged that the functioning and protocols of these institutions are governed by the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 but observed that statutory regulation alone does not necessarily require the continued use of terminology that may contribute to social stigma. The Bench emphasised the importance of ensuring that such Centres are perceived as institutions supporting community welfare, development, treatment and rehabilitation, rather than as facilities associated exclusively with a particular form of illness.
Recognising that the question primarily involves governmental policy, the Court directed the competent authority of the Government of Kerala to examine the suggestions made by the amicus curiae regarding the nomenclature of Mental Health Centres. The Government was directed to consider the issue and place its response before the Court.
“We make it clear that this issue cannot be treated as an adversarial one, nor do we propose to do so; because, it is in the interest of the vulnerable sections of the patients that they be kept away from stigma and that the Centres are considered to be favourable to community welfare and development, rather than for a particular kind of illness.”
The matter was accordingly adjourned to 15 September 2026 for the Government to inform the Court of the steps taken or its position on the issue.
[The High Court Legal Services Committee v. State of Kerala, IA 25/2026 in WP(C) No. 16603 of 2026, decided on 21-8-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Amicus curiae: Sathyasree Priya
For the Petitioner: X, appearing in person (suo motu).
For the Respondents: Government Pleader; A.S.P. Kurup; Sunil Shankar, Senior Counsel; counsel for Indian Overseas Bank; Special Government Pleader; Litto Varghese Palathinkal; Thanuja Roshan; Dr. S. Gopakumaran Nair, Senior Counsel; Abraham George Jacob; Athira A. Menon; Isaac Thomas; K. Krishna; N. Ashok Kumar; Liji J. Vadakedom; K. Anand; Sonu Augustine; N. Manoj Kumar; State Attorney; K.R. Ranjith, Government Pleader with State Attorney; O.M. Shalina; Deputy Solicitor General of India; C. Murali Krishnan (Payyanur); Akshay R.; N.N. Girija; Sharad Joseph Kodanthara; Alexander Joseph Markos; P.G. Chandapillai Abraham; Mariamma George Marangoly; S. Prasanth; Sooraj T. Elenjickal; K. Arjun Venugopal; Aswin Kumar M.J.; Arun Roy; Suvin R. Menon; Senior Panel Counsel; Sadchith P. Kurup; Sunil Shanker; and Ashlin Saju.
