What mechanism is in place for treatment of homeless, asks high court
The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court has directed the state counsel to seek instructions as to what mechanism was in place, whether under any statute or otherwise, for taking care of the homeless, especially those covered under the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, and how it was being implemented in the state of Uttar Pradesh
A public interest litigation (PIL) filed in the Allahabad high court has made the court question the state authority about what mechanism was in place for the treatment and care of homeless and destitute persons.
The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court has directed the state counsel to seek instructions as to what mechanism was in place, whether under any statute or otherwise, for taking care of the homeless, especially those covered under the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, and how it was being implemented in the state of Uttar Pradesh. In response to it, the state counsel filed government orders issued in this regard.
A division bench, comprising justice Rajan Roy and justice Om Prakash Shukla, passed an order on July 11 on a PIL filed by one Jyoti Rajput, who has sought directives from the court for the proper care and treatment of the homeless, including mentally ill persons who live in abandonment.
The bench has directed the state authority to ensure an attendant for the treatment/operation of the destitute mentioned in the writ petition and apprise this court by means of an affidavit in this regard.
“In view of the aforesaid government orders, the opposite party no. 2 is directed to ensure an attendant for the treatment/operation of the destitute mentioned in the writ petition and apprise this court by means of an affidavit in this regard,” the court ordered.
Listing the matter for the next hearing on August 6, the court further directed that the affidavit should be filed by the opposite party no. 2 by then. The affidavit should also explain as to how many such cases covered by the aforesaid clause had been dealt with in the past one year and in how many cases attendants were provided to such persons, the court directed.
“This issue will be seen by us on the next date so far as an application of the aforesaid government order throughout the state is concerned, as to how this should be monitored, as the State in the larger interest of destitute and mentally ill, has issued the said government order, which, we appreciate, but, want to ensure its proper implementation considering the allegation herein that the destitute in this case was turned out from the hospital on the ground that there is no person to attend to him, therefore, the operation cannot take place, although Ms. Isha Mittal, the learned additional chief standing counsel, says that it is not so,” the court observed. MANOJ KUMAR SINGH
