### Section 105 of Mental Healthcare Act cannot be weaponized to challenge an adversary's legal capacity in litigation.

The Applicant/Plaintiff filed a suit for a one-third share in ancestral properties against his father (Defendant No. 1).

The Applicant filed the present Interim Application (IA) under Section 105 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 (MHA), seeking the appointment of an independent Medical Board to assess the mental condition of Defendant No. 1, alleging he suffers from mental illness and lacks the capacity to contest the suit.

The Applicant relied on a medical certificate from Metrocure Multispecialty Clinic.

Defendant No. 1 denied the allegations, asserting the IA was an abuse of process, particularly since a previous identical application [IA (L) No. 34827 of 2025] had been unconditionally withdrawn on 17th November 2025.

Whether the statutory mechanism under the MHA can be invoked by a litigant as a tool to challenge the legal capacity of an adversary in a civil dispute.

Whether the medical evidence produced regarding transient metabolic symptoms constitutes "proof of mental illness" under Section 105 of the MHA.

Whether the Applicant is barred from seeking the same reliefs after the unconditional withdrawal of a prior identical application.

The Court primarily interpreted Section 105 of the MHA, which mandates a court to refer a matter to a Board for scrutiny if "proof of mental illness" is produced and challenged during a judicial process.

It defined "mental illness" per Section 2(1)(s) as a "substantial disorder" of thinking, mood, or memory that "grossly impairs judgment," excluding mental retardation.

The court also relied on the legislative intent found in the Preamble of the MHA, shifting from the "custodial" approach of the Indian Lunacy Act, 1912, to a "rights-based, patient-centric regime" aimed at protecting the autonomy of persons with illness.

Finally, the court applied the principle of estoppel regarding the unconditional withdrawal of interlocutory applications.

The Court reasoned that Section 105, situated within Chapter XIII ("Responsibilities of Other Agencies"), is a protective "shield" for the vulnerable and not a "sword" for adversaries to gain tactical advantages.

It held that allowing litigants to weaponize the MHA would lead to gross harassment and subvert the Act’s welfare-driven purpose.

On the merits, the Court found the produced Medical Certificate insufficient as it only described "transient symptoms" (delusions, confusion) resulting from hypoglycemic episodes in a diabetic patient, which resolve upon stabilizing blood sugar.

Such reversible metabolic conditions do not meet the threshold of a "substantial disorder" required by Section 2(1)(s).

Furthermore, the court noted that the Applicant provided no fresh facts to justify re-agitating reliefs previously withdrawn without liberty.

It held that Section 105 of the MHA cannot be invoked by a party to challenge an opponent's capacity for collateral purposes in adversarial litigation.

The Court further held that the Applicant failed to provide "proof of mental illness" as defined by the statute and was otherwise legally barred from re-filing the application due to the prior unconditional withdrawal.

No order as to costs was made.