The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday, May 19 dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by a Sikh woman seeking a compulsory mental health evaluation of her 21-year-old daughter, who chose to live with her Muslim partner.
A vacation bench of Justices Suraj Govindaraj and K Manmadha Rao held that a mental assessment cannot be ordered against the will of an adult who unequivocally stated she is living with her partner voluntarily.
“Why should anybody undergo evaluation merely because you ask for it? You can only apply under the Mental Healthcare Act and follow that procedure,” the bench observed, making it clear that forced evaluation was impermissible, according to Bar and Bench.
The daughter told the court she had earlier written letters accusing her partner of rape and forced religious conversion only because her parents and members of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh had pressured her.
“My dad and mom made me meet RSS people and made me write this letter. None of this is true, neither the conversion nor the rape. They threatened me and made me write this under pressure,” she said.
She further told the court that her parents had repeatedly attempted to portray her as “mentally unstable” to discredit her relationship. “All the allegations… claiming that I’m mad is all fake. I have been stable and I don’t know why they’ve been troubling me like this,” she stated.
Noting that the woman was an adult and had stated she was staying with her partner of her own free will, the court said it could not interfere.
“We are of the considered opinion that there cannot be any such forced mental evaluation against the will of the so-called detenue,” the bench ruled, reiterating that she had made her statements confidently and coherently.
Counsel for the mother, Advocate Rahul Reddy, argued that the woman had a past record of therapy and psychological treatment at NIMHANS, which warranted an independent assessment to determine if her consent was informed.
He argued that contradictions existed between her current claims and earlier letters alleging rape, forced conversion and threats to her life.
However, the court noted that it could not itself conduct a mental assessment in chambers and that her clear, voluntary statements before the bench disproved assertions about compromised mental health.
Recording that the police had produced her in court, that she had categorically denied all allegations, refused to accompany her parents and stated she wished to continue living with her partner, the bench dismissed the petition.
