Prescription Alone Cannot Prove Mental Illness; Past Hospitalization Not Sufficient To Declare Person As Psychiatric Patient: Gauhati High Court

The Court further held that where mental illness is claimed and challenged by the other party during judicial proceedings, the correct course is to invoke Section 105 of the Act, which mandates referral to a Board of medical experts for examination, a provision the petitioner had failed to invoke before the Foreigners Tribunal.

The Court additionally observed that medicines appearing in the prescription placed on record indicated treatment for Parkinson's disease, a progressive nervous system disorder affecting movement, which has no relation to mental illness, and the claim that contradictions in the petitioner's statements were attributable to psychiatric illness therefore could not be sustained.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Shamima Jahan observed, “Mental illness is defined under the said Act, more specifically, under Section 3 of the Act. It is provided that mental illness will be determined in accordance with such nationally or internationally accepted medical standards, as may be notified by Central Government. It is further provided that mental illness of a person shall not be determined on the basis of factors not directly relevant to mental health status and it is also provided that past treatment or hospitalization in a mental health establishment shall not, by itself, justify the determination of a person’s mental illness”.

“In the instant case, only a prescription is relied upon, which is not sufficient to hold that the proceedee is a psychiatric patient…Parkinson’s disease is a progressive nervous system disorder that effects movement and worsens over time. The same has no relation with mental illness and in the instant case, the projection is of mental illness of the petitioner, which, however, is not the case here. As such, it cannot be said that the petitioner is a mental patient and that his statements cannot be believed. It is clarified that what is stated above in this paragraph is not to be considered as a finding of the court, but only a passing observations”, the Bench further observed.

Advocate Z. Hammad appeared for the petitioner and C.K.S. Baruah, CGC appeared for the respondent.

The petitioner, was declared a foreigner of post March 25, 1971 stream by the Foreigners Tribunal, Morigaon, and challenged the opinion before the High Court. His principal contention was that he suffered from mental illness, evidenced by a prescription from Lokopriya Gopinath Bordoloi Regional Institute of Mental Health, Tezpur, and that this explained contradictions in his statements before the Tribunal. His wife, examined as DW-2, had stated that he suffered from mental disease for fifteen years and produced the medical prescription.

The Court found glaring contradictions between the petitioner and his wife's statements, the petitioner stated his father died in 1986 and his mother died when he was a child and that he had one elder brother, while his wife stated her father-in-law died in 1997, her mother-in-law was alive, and her husband had four brothers.

These contradictions, the Court held, could not be explained away by the claim of mental illness in the absence of any Board opinion under Section 105 of the Mental Healthcare Act.

The documents including the Gaonburha certificate, Panchayat certificate and school certificate were also excluded from evidence as their issuing authorities were not examined. The link between the petitioner and his projected father was found unestablished, and the Tribunal's opinion declaring him a foreigner was upheld.

Cause Title: Farjul Haque @ Md. Faizul @ Fazlul Hoque v. Union of India and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:GAU-AS:9359)

Petitioner: Z. Hammad, Advocate.

Respondents: C.K.S. Baruah, CGC, A. I. Ali, A. Verma, Standing Counsel, N. Kalita, R.B. Bora, Advocates.

Click here to read/download the Judgment