JITENDRA GORAKH MEGH (IN PERSON) vs GORAKH GOVIND MEGH
- Court
- Bombay High Court
- Case type
- Interim Application
- Decided on
- 17-02-2026
2026:BHC-OS:5270
14. IA 7713.2025
Jitendra Gorakh Megh vs. Gorakh Megh & Anr.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7713 OF 2025
IN
SUIT NO. 1215 OF 2019
Jitendra Gorakh Megh …Applicant/Plaintiff
V/s.
Gorakh Govind Megh & Anr. …Defendants
_______________________________________
Mr. Jitendra Gorakh Megh, Applicant/Plaintiff in-person
Mr. Aditya Sharma a/w. Hitesh Gupta a/w. Vipul Makwana and
Mohiteshwari Prasad for Defendant
_______________________________________
CORAM : FARHAN P. DUBASH, J.
th
DATE : 17 FEBRUARY 2026
Oral Judgment :
1. The present Interim Application (IA), preferred under Section
105 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 (MHA), has been filed by the
Applicant/Plaintiff seeking the appointment of an independent Medical
Board to examine and assess the mental condition of Defendant No. 1, who
is the Applicant's father and who is alleged to be suffering from mental
illness. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that several disputes, both civil
Page 1 of 14
-------------------------------------
th
Judgment dated 17 February 2026
::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 26/02/2026 14:48:59 :::
14. IA 7713.2025
Jitendra Gorakh Megh vs. Gorakh Megh & Anr.
and criminal are presently pending between the Applicant and Defendant
No. 1 before various fora across Maharashtra and beyond. The captioned suit
is one such proceeding, wherein the Applicant seeks a one-third share in the
coparcenary/ancestral properties of Defendant No. 1.
2. By way of the present IA, the Applicant asserts that his father,
Defendant No. 1 suffers from mental illness and, on that basis, challenges his
mental competency and capacity to contest the captioned suit. In support of
this contention, the Applicant relies upon a medical certificate issued by
Metrocure Multispecialty Clinic and Diagnostic Centre (the Medical
Certificate). The Applicant further alleges that he has been deliberately
denied access to his father by the Applicant's step-mother, who is a medical
doctor by profession and with whom Defendant No. 1 presently resides. In
the aforesaid circumstances, the Applicant has preferred the present IA. The
present IA thus raises an important question - Whether the statutory
mechanism intended to safeguard the rights and welfare of persons with
mental illness can be invoked by a litigant as a tool to challenge the legal
capacity of an adversary?
3. The Applicant, Mr. Jitendra Gorakh Megh, appears in-person.
He places reliance on the Medical Certificate and contends that the
observations and diagnosis recorded therein clearly establish that his father,
Page 2 of 14
-------------------------------------
th
Judgment dated 17 February 2026
::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 26/02/2026 14:48:59 :::
14. IA 7713.2025
Jitendra Gorakh Megh vs. Gorakh Megh & Anr.
Defendant No. 1 suffers from mental illness. Placing reliance on Section 105
of the MHA, the Applicant submits that by reason of such mental illness,
Defendant No. 1 is not in a position to meaningfully contest the pending
legal proceedings that the Applicant has instituted against him. In the
circumstances, the Applicant urges that an independent Medical Board ought
to be constituted to examine Defendant No. 1 and render a determination in
that regard. On these grounds, the Applicant presses for the reliefs sought in
the present IA.
4. Per contra, Mr. Aditya Sharma, learned Counsel appearing on
behalf of Defendant No. 1, vehemently refutes the allegations levelled in the
present IA. He submits that Defendant No. 1 does not suffer from any mental
illness or incapacity, whether as alleged or otherwise, and that the assertions
made by the Applicant in that regard are false and untenable. At the outset,
Mr. Sharma submits that the present IA constitutes a gross abuse of the
process of law and is not maintainable, and accordingly, presses for its
dismissal.
5. He draws the Court's attention to Interim Application (L) No.
34827 of 2025, previously filed by the Applicant before this Court seeking
reliefs identical to those sought in the present IA, which came to be
unconditionally withdrawn by the Applicant, as recorded in the order dated
th
17 November 2025. He accordingly submits that having unconditionally
Page 3 of 14
-------------------------------------
th
Judgment dated 17 February 2026
::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 26/02/2026 14:48:59 :::
14. IA 7713.2025
Jitendra Gorakh Megh vs. Gorakh Megh & Anr.
withdrawn the said Interim Application, the Applicant is now estopped
and/or otherwise barred in law from maintaining the present IA and
reagitating the same reliefs thereunder.
6. Without prejudice to the foregoing, Mr. Sharma further submits
that the reliefs sought in the present IA are not maintainable under Section
105 of the MHA, inasmuch as, the said provision does not contemplate or
permit an application being preferred against a third party, more so in the
context of subsisting adversarial litigation between the parties. He further
submits that the Medical Certificate sought to be relied upon by the
Applicant does not, on a fair reading, disclose or establish any mental
incapacity on the part of Defendant No. 1, and that the assertions made by
the Applicant in that regard are false and misconceived. On these grounds,
Mr. Sharma reiterates the prayer for dismissal of the present IA.
7. Having heard the parties at some length and having perused the
material placed on record, it would be advantageous, before adverting to the
provisions of Section 105 of the MHA, to trace the legislative history and
appreciate the context in which the said provision came to be enacted.
8. The earliest legislative framework governing mental illness in
India was the Indian Lunacy Act, 1912 (the Lunacy Act), enacted during the
colonial era. The Lunacy Act defined a " lunatic " as " a person who is an idiot or a
Page 4 of 14
-------------------------------------
th
Judgment dated 17 February 2026
::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 26/02/2026 14:48:59 :::
14. IA 7713.2025
Jitendra Gorakh Megh vs. Gorakh Megh & Anr.
person of unsound mind
." The said enactment provided for the treatment and
care of such persons in asylums; however, it simultaneously criminalised
lunacy by conferring upon the police the power to arrest persons whom they
had reason to believe were lunatics. The Lunacy Act further prescribed
procedures for the reception, detention, and management of lunatics within
such asylums. This approach reflected the prevailing perception of the era,
wherein persons suffering from mental illness were regarded as a danger to
society and as being incapable of coexisting alongside the general populace.
9. The Lunacy Act was subsequently succeeded by the Mental
Health Act, 1987 (the 1987 Act), which, as its Preamble sets out, was
"
enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to the treatment and care of
mentally ill persons, to make better provision with respect to their property and
"
affairs and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
Under the
" " "
1987 Act, a mentally ill person was defined to mean a person who is in need
"
of treatment by reason of any mental disorder other than mental retardation. The
1987 Act thus reflected a discernible shift in societal outlook towards persons
affected by mental illness. Its underlying intent was to dispel the stigma
historically attached to mental illness and to acknowledge that, if detected at
an early stage, such conditions were amenable to treatment and cure.
Although the 1987 Act represented a significant advancement over the
Lunacy Act, its scope remained confined largely to the establishment and
Page 5 of 14
-------------------------------------
th
Judgment dated 17 February 2026
::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 26/02/2026 14:48:59 :::
14. IA 7713.2025
Jitendra Gorakh Megh vs. Gorakh Megh & Anr.
regulation of psychiatric hospitals and psychiatric nursing homes for the
treatment of mentally ill persons.
10. It was with the enactment of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017
that the legislature, for the first time, expressly acknowledged and sought to
protect the rights of persons with mental illness. This is evident from the
Preamble to the MHA, which reads thus:
"An Act to provide for mental healthcare and services for persons with mental
illness and to protect, promote and fulfill the rights of such persons during delivery
of mental healthcare and services and for matters connected therewith or
incidental thereto."
11. The legislative intent underlying the MHA is further reinforced
by the Mental Healthcare (Rights of Persons with Mental Illness) Rules,
2018, which envisage a comprehensive framework for the rehabilitation and
reintegration of persons with mental illness, while also securing their
entitlement to legal and medical rights. Taken together, the MHA and the
Rules framed thereunder reflect a legislative framework that is distinctly
welfare-driven, anchored in the preservation of individual autonomy, and
oriented towards the protection and empowerment of persons with mental
illness.
12. Under the MHA, the term " mental illness " is defined under
Section 2(1)(s) to mean:
Page 6 of 14
-------------------------------------
th
Judgment dated 17 February 2026
::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 26/02/2026 14:48:59 :::
14. IA 7713.2025
Jitendra Gorakh Megh vs. Gorakh Megh & Anr.
"a substantial disorder of thinking, mood, perception, orientation or memory that
grossly impairs judgment, behaviour, capacity to recognise reality or ability to
meet the ordinary demands of life, mental conditions associated with the abuse of
alcohol and drugs, but does not include mental retardation which is a condition of
arrested or incomplete development of mind of a person, specially characterised
by sub-normality of intelligence."
13. Significantly, Section 2(1)(o) of the MHA defines " mental
healthcare
" to include:
"analysis and diagnosis of a person's mental condition and treatment as well as
care and rehabilitation of such person for his mental illness or suspected mental
illness."
14. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions reveals that the
MHA does not merely provide for the treatment and care of persons suffering
from mental illness, but extends its protective ambit to encompass their
rehabilitation as well. Of equal significance is the fact that the MHA expressly
recognises the capacity of persons with mental illness to make informed
decisions with respect to their own treatment, a recognition that is consistent
with the autonomy-preserving ethos that permeates the statute as a whole.
15. Therefore, on a conspectus of the provisions of the MHA, it is
manifest that the said enactment constitutes a rights-based framework of
mental healthcare, conceived and structured with the primary objective of
protecting and empowering persons with mental illness. The evolution of
India's mental health law from the Lunacy Act through the 1987 Act to the
Page 7 of 14
-------------------------------------
th
Judgment dated 17 February 2026
::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 26/02/2026 14:48:59 :::
14. IA 7713.2025
Jitendra Gorakh Megh vs. Gorakh Megh & Anr.
MHA marks a paradigm shift from a custodial, colonial framework,
preoccupied with public safety and the confinement of persons deemed
lunatic, to a rights-based, patient-centric regime, grounded in the
constitutional values of dignity and autonomy. Whereas the Lunacy Act
concerned itself predominantly with the reception, detention, and
management of lunatics in asylums, with little to no recognition of individual
rights, the MHA reflects a fundamentally different legislative philosophy, one
that is aligned with contemporary constitutional values and international
human rights standards, recognises mental healthcare as a justiciable legal
right, and accords primacy to the diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation of
persons with mental illness.
16. Having traced the legislative history and framework of the MHA,
it is now necessary to advert to Section 105 thereof, which is the provision
directly invoked by the Applicant in the present IA. Section 105 governs the
course of action to be adopted by a court during any judicial process where
proof of mental illness is produced and the same is disputed by the other
party. For ease of reference, Section 105 is reproduced hereunder:
" 105. Question of mental illness in judicial process – If during any judicial
process before any competent court, proof of mental illness is produced and is
challenged by the other party, the court shall refer the same for further scrutiny to
the concerned Board and the Board shall, after examination of the person alleged
to have a mental illness either by itself or through a committee of experts, submit
its opinion to the court."
Page 8 of 14
-------------------------------------
th
Judgment dated 17 February 2026
::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 26/02/2026 14:48:59 :::
14. IA 7713.2025
Jitendra Gorakh Megh vs. Gorakh Megh & Anr.
17. A bare perusal of Section 105 reveals that the language
employed therein is unambiguously mandatory in character. Upon proof of
mental illness being produced and contested before it, a court is duty-bound
to refer the matter to the Mental Health Review Board constituted under the
MHA for further scrutiny. The Board, upon such reference, is equally
obligated to examine the person alleged to be suffering from mental illness,
either by itself or through a committee of experts and thereafter submit its
opinion to the court.
18. This, however, gives rise to a pertinent question – who may
adduce proof of mental illness before a court for the purposes of Section
105? In this context, it is significant to note that Section 105 is situated
within Chapter XIII of the MHA, which bears the heading " Responsibilities of
Other Agencies ." A perusal of Chapter XIII reveals that the legislature has
grouped the following provisions thereunder:
“ (i) Section 100 — Duties of police officers in respect of persons with mental
illness;
(ii) Section 101 — Report to Magistrate of person with mental illness in private
residence who is ill-treated or neglected;
(iii) Section 102 — Conveying or admitting person with mental illness to a mental
health establishment by a Magistrate;
(iv) Section 103 — Prisoners with mental illness; and
”
Section 104 — Persons in custodial institutions.
(v)
Page 9 of 14
-------------------------------------
th
Judgment dated 17 February 2026
::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 26/02/2026 14:48:59 :::
14. IA 7713.2025
Jitendra Gorakh Megh vs. Gorakh Megh & Anr.
19. Each of the provisions enumerated under Chapter XIII casts a
duty upon the respective agencies to forthwith refer a person suspected to be
suffering from mental illness to a mental health establishment for treatment.
A analogous duty is cast upon a court under Section 105 upon proof of
mental illness being adduced before it. What is implicit in a collective
reading of these provisions, however, is that their underlying objective is the
protection of the rights of persons with mental illness not the creation of a
mechanism that may be weaponised by a party to gather proof of mental
illness against an adversary with a view to securing a tactical advantage in
subsisting litigation.
20. To permit such a course of action would be to arm unscrupulous
litigants with the provisions of the MHA, including Section 105, as
instruments of harassment rather than protection. Taken to its logical
conclusion, such an interpretation would open the floodgates to a situation
where every contesting party invokes Section 105 against his counterpart,
reducing a welfare-driven statutory provision to a tool of litigation strategy, a
consequence that would be wholly antithetical to the legislative intent of the
MHA and would have far-reaching and harmful ramifications for the
administration of justice.
21. In consonance with the legislative intent as captured in its
Preamble, the MHA is a rights-based framework conceived for the protection,
Page 10 of 14
-------------------------------------
th
Judgment dated 17 February 2026
::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 26/02/2026 14:48:59 :::
14. IA 7713.2025
Jitendra Gorakh Megh vs. Gorakh Megh & Anr.
diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation of persons with mental illness. It
follows, therefore, that Section 105 is intended to operate as a shield for the
protection of such persons and not as a sword to be wielded against them by
an adversarial party for collateral purposes.
22. Reverting to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the
Applicant has sought to invoke Section 105 of the MHA against his own
father, Defendant No. 1, with the express object of establishing that
Defendant No. 1 lacks the mental capacity to contest the captioned suit,
which has been instituted by the Applicant himself seeking partition of
ancestral/coparcenary property. It is undisputed that the captioned suit is
actively contested by Defendant No. 1.
23. In these circumstances, it is ex facie apparent that the
Applicant's invocation of Section 105 is not motivated by any desire to
protect or safeguard the rights of Defendant No. 1, but is, on the contrary, a
calculated attempt to deploy the said provision as an instrument of litigation
strategy to secure a decisive advantage over Defendant No. 1 in the pending
proceedings. Such an invocation strikes at the very root of the legislative
intent underlying the MHA and, in particular, Section 105 thereof, as
elaborated hereinabove. As discussed above, Section 105 is intended to
operate as a shield for the protection of persons with mental illness and
cannot be permitted to be wielded as a sword against them by an adversarial
Page 11 of 14
-------------------------------------
th
Judgment dated 17 February 2026
::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 26/02/2026 14:48:59 :::
14. IA 7713.2025
Jitendra Gorakh Megh vs. Gorakh Megh & Anr.
party. The present IA, being a plain attempt to do precisely that, cannot be
countenanced and is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
24. Notwithstanding the foregoing, and without prejudice thereto,
the Medical Certificate relied upon by the Applicant, which forms the very
foundation of the present IA does not, on a fair reading, bear out his
contention that Defendant No. 1 suffers from mental illness. The Medical
Certificate merely records that Defendant No. 1 is a diabetic patient who
experiences hypoglycaemic episodes following insulin administration,
manifesting in transient symptoms such as delusions, confusion,
forgetfulness, and perspiration. Significantly, the Medical Certificate itself
acknowledges that these symptoms are temporary in nature and resolve
upon restoration of normal blood glucose levels.
25. It is well-settled that episodic and reversible symptoms arising
from an underlying metabolic condition cannot, prima facie, be equated with
or construed as mental illness within the meaning of Section 2(1)(s) of the
MHA. As noted hereinabove, " mental illness " under the MHA connotes a
substantial and persistent disorder of thinking, mood, perception,
orientation, memory, judgment, behaviour, or the capacity to recognise
reality or meet the ordinary demands of life, of the kind associated with
conditions such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or dementia. The
transient and metabolically-induced symptoms recorded in the Medical
Page 12 of 14
-------------------------------------
th
Judgment dated 17 February 2026
::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 26/02/2026 14:48:59 :::
14. IA 7713.2025
Jitendra Gorakh Megh vs. Gorakh Megh & Anr.
Certificate fall manifestly short of this threshold and cannot, by any
reasonable construction, be regarded as constituting mental illness within the
contemplation of the MHA.
26. It is further material to note that Defendant No. 1 does not
himself claim to be suffering from any mental illness. On the contrary, he
strenuously disputes the said allegation. In such a contentious backdrop,
allegations of mental illness levelled by one party against another, in the
context of adversarial litigation are required to be scrutinized with utmost
circumspection. In the absence of any cogent or reliable medical material
establishing the existence of a mental illness within the meaning of Section
2(1)(s) of the MHA, this Court is unable to accept the Applicant's contention
in that regard. The Medical Certificate, for the reasons elaborated
hereinabove, falls well short of constituting " proof of mental illness " within the
contemplation of Section 105 of the MHA. Consequently, the Applicant has
failed to produce the requisite proof of mental illness on the part of
Defendant No. 1, and the present IA must fail on this ground as well.
27. Without prejudice to the foregoing, the present IA is
independently liable to be rejected on an additional ground. It is borne out
from the record that the Applicant had previously filed Interim Application
(L) No. 34827 of 2025 seeking reliefs substantially identical to those sought
in the present IA, which came to be unconditionally withdrawn without any
Page 13 of 14
-------------------------------------
th
Judgment dated 17 February 2026
::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 26/02/2026 14:48:59 :::
14. IA 7713.2025
Jitendra Gorakh Megh vs. Gorakh Megh & Anr.
liberty to file a fresh application. The present IA neither discloses nor pleads
any new facts or changed circumstances that would justify a second
invocation of the same reliefs. In view of such unconditional withdrawal, the
Applicant is estopped in law from reagitating the same reliefs by way of the
present IA, and cannot be permitted to do so. To hold otherwise would be to
render the unconditional withdrawal wholly nugatory and to countenance an
abuse of the process of this Court.
28. In the circumstances enumerated hereinabove, the present IA
stands disposed of in terms of the following order:
:: ORDER ::
(i) The present Interim Application stands dismissed.
(ii) There shall be no order as to costs.
( FARHAN P. DUBASH, J. )
Jyoti Pawar
JYOTI
PRAKASH
PAWAR
Digitally signed
by JYOTI
PRAKASH PAWAR
Date: 2026.02.26
14:31:15 +0530
Page 14 of 14
-------------------------------------
th
Judgment dated 17 February 2026
::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 26/02/2026 14:48:59 :::