Persons In Mental Health Facilities Not Disqualified From Voting Unless Declared Of Unsound Mind By Court: Kerala High Court
The High Court held that persons residing in mental health rehabilitation facilities cannot be excluded from the electoral roll or made to vote separately unless a competent court has declared them to be of unsound mind under Section 74(1)(b) of the Kerala Municipality Act.
Justice P.V Kunhikrishnan, Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has held that individuals residing in mental health or rehabilitation centres cannot be disqualified from voting merely based on assumptions about their mental condition under the Kerala Municipality Act.
The High Court clarified that electoral disqualification on the ground of unsoundness of mind is permissible only when there exists a judicial declaration to that effect.
The Court was hearing a petition seeking directions to segregate and separately record the votes of certain residents of a mental health rehabilitation centre. The petitioners contended that the individuals lacked the capacity to make an informed electoral choice and therefore required special voting arrangements.
A Single Bench of Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, while examining the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Act, highlighted: “Section 74(1)(b) says that a person shall be disqualified for registration in an electoral roll if he is of unsound mind and stands so declared by a competent court…. That is the only disqualification mentioned in the Act 1994 for not allowing registration in the electoral roll”.
Advocate Joseph T John represented the petitioners, while Advocate Deepu Lal Mohan represented the respondents.
Background
The petitioners alleged that several residents of a rehabilitation facility in their municipal ward were mentally challenged and could not meaningfully exercise their right to vote. They submitted representations to the electoral authorities, requesting that these individuals be either removed from the electoral roll or permitted to cast their votes on a separate voting machine.
The Election Registration Officer deleted the name of one person because the individual was deceased, but found no basis to remove the other names. Dissatisfied, the petitioners approached the High Court. The persons whose capacity was questioned, as well as the institution where they resided, were not impleaded.
The petitioners argued that the mental condition of the individuals justified special treatment during polling.
Court’s Observation
The Kerala High Court examined Section 74 of the Kerala Municipality Act, focusing on Section 74(1)(b). The Court reiterated that disqualification from registration in the electoral roll on the ground of unsoundness of mind requires a judicial determination. Without such a declaration, the Court held, assumptions about mental health cannot justify any interference with electoral rights.
The Bench then turned to the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017. Referring to Sections 2(s), 3 and 4, the Court noted that the Act recognises a presumption of mental capacity and requires capacity to be assessed as per statutory standards. It was observed that mental illness cannot be equated with legal unsoundness of mind and cannot be presumed based on mere assertions.
The Court stated that there was no material to establish that the individuals concerned were persons of unsound mind as defined in law. It further held that “without any documentary evidence, this Court cannot declare” that the persons residing in the rehabilitation centre were incapable of voting.
The Bench also examined the Mental Health Care Act, 2017 and observed that “there is a legal presumption that every person, including a person with mental illness, shall be deemed to have the capacity to make decisions regarding their mental health care or treatment, if such person has the abilities mentioned in sub clauses (a) to (c)” of Section 4 of the Act.
The Bench rejected the request to segregate votes or use a separate electronic voting machine, observing that electoral law does not permit the creation of a separate category of voters on the basis of unverified mental health assumptions.
The Court also noted the defect of non-joinder, observing that individuals whose competence was being challenged were neither impleaded nor was the institution where they resided.
Conclusion
Holding that none of the statutory grounds for disqualification were satisfied, the Kerala High Court dismissed the writ petition.
Cause Title: Jomon Jacob & Another v. State Election Commission & Others (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:87325)
Appearances
Petitioners: Advocate Joseph T John
Respondents: Advocate Deepu Lal Mohan, Special Government Pleader Deepa KR