The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Wednesday issued a series of directions to Punjab, Haryana, the Union Territory of Chandigarh, and the Centre to ensure time-bound compliance with the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, pulling up authorities for prolonged delays in framing and implementing key rules.

Hearing a public interest litigation filed by Pushpanjali Trust, a division bench led by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu issued a writ of mandamus to the Punjab government to notify the Mental Healthcare Rules within 15 days, noting that the Centre had approved them on April 17.

The court was informed that Haryana’s rules had already received central approval on January 8 and would be notified within 15 days. With regard to Chandigarh, the bench directed the Centre to take a decision and approve the draft rules submitted by the UT administration on April 21 within a similar time frame.

The bench observed that it was “compelled” to pass these directions as the state governments and the UT administration had taken years to frame the rules and send them for approval, despite the Act having come into force in 2017.

The court also examined compliance with provisions relating to rehabilitation infrastructure for persons with mental illness. It noted that while Chandigarh has a group home in Sector 31 and Haryana has established a halfway home at Sampla in Rohtak district, there was no clear indication from Punjab and Haryana regarding the establishment of group homes under Section 19(3) of the Act.

The bench directed the chief secretaries of both states to file affidavits detailing the status of such facilities. Haryana was also asked to place on record details of its halfway home through an affidavit before the next hearing.

The court further directed the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh, to inform it about the timeline for conducting a need-based survey for establishing group homes in every district of Punjab, and to file an additional affidavit indicating the current stage of such a survey.

On the issue of statutory oversight, the bench noted that none of the replies indicated whether annual reports mandated under Section 64 of the Act had been prepared by state authorities. It directed Punjab and Haryana to clarify this in their affidavits and explain any lapses.

The court also took note of the requirement under sections 73 and 74 of the Act to constitute Mental Health Review Boards. While Haryana submitted that it was in the process of constituting one, the bench observed that despite the passage of seven years since the establishment of the state authority, no board had been set up. It accordingly directed Haryana to constitute the Mental Health Review Board within five weeks.

The matter has been listed for further hearing on May 18.