The prison, where a care infrastructure already exists, is a good location for examining the care gap in the criminal justice system (CJS). Any notion that the CJS can reliably identify patients with mental illness who need care, on the other hand, has to be examined further. When determining whether or not an accused is fit to stand trial, and when an accused asserts the insanity defence, the CJS for adults interacts with mental health the most overtly. It affects the court’s discretion in deciding punishment, particularly the death penalty, to a lesser extent. However, in all of these stages, the law’s overly restricted approach only considers mental diseases that occur on the psychotic spectrum. As a result, various mental diseases slide between the cracks and go untreated. This suggests that the court, as well as procedural and substantive criminal law, is one area that the care gap question needs to investigate.

The criminal justice system, access to justice, and the care gap are all issues that need to be addressed.

The problem of capacity is central to both the competency to stand trial and the insanity defence. Indian criminal law maintains its conventional, all-or-nothing approach to determining capacity – either the accused has capacity or he or she does not – which also prevents mental health experts (MHPs) from highlighting the gradations of mental illness. The legal system’s incapacity to devise appropriate remedies and, as a result, a care gap stems from the denial of a sophisticated understanding of mental health. Even within the narrow confines of criminal law, there are issues regarding the system’s ability to effectively recognize mental illness. The system relies on judges and lawyers to recognize mental diseases and address related difficulties unless these illnesses have been previously documented, usually through treatment. These interlocutors, who aren’t trained in the field, tend to rely on visible evidence of “abnormal” symptoms – a perception of mental illness that stems from popular representations of “crazy” people and has made its way into legal jargon. Add to that the reality that lawyers rarely meet with inmates to discuss their personal history, including experiences of mental illness.

Another impediment to identification is that the right to legal representation is viewed as only having access to a lawyer. Even if the MHP is a member of the defence team, jail rules prohibit MHPs from seeing the inmate. As a result, the defence has limited opportunities to provide evidence of previously undiagnosed mental illness. This penalizes accused persons from socioeconomically disadvantaged groups who have limited access to mental health care and treatment and, as a result, may have no records of their disease. While this issue has lately found a solution in the context of death row inmates, it remains a little-discussed subject elsewhere.

Because Medical Health Practioner are excluded, the Criminal Justice System is practically unable to identify people with mental illnesses, let alone meet its aims of providing housing, support, and treatment. For example, in one death penalty case involving Project 39A, the prisoner’s mental health issues, which had been present since childhood, were not revealed until much later in the court process. For many years, the prisoner had been sent to a faith healer for some “abnormal conditions,” but he had never had professional treatment, thus there were no medical records.

The Care Gap and Prison

In the prison system, there is a comparable lack of imagination and scepticism. Accused persons with mental illness who are not redirected to mental health hospitals or released into the community end up in prisons. The National Mental Health Policy (2014) acknowledged inmates as a vulnerable population, acknowledging that jail is a risk factor for poor mental health. The Mental Healthcare Act of 2017 extends to prisoners the right of people with mental illnesses to get quality treatment, and it requires prison officials to guarantee that this right is upheld.

However, prisons are short on resources when it comes to mental health treatment facilities. Many respondents in Project 39A’s mental health survey, in which 88 death row inmates from Delhi, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, and Kerala were questioned, noted a disturbing absence of effective mental health treatment in jail. In several states, according to the Prison Statistics India (2016) report, there are either no sanctioned positions for psychologists or psychiatrists in prisons, or sanctioned positions have not been filled.

Measures to prevent Mental illness:

The new Act mandates that the government create “less restrictive community-based facilities, such as half-way houses, group homes, and the like for those who no longer require treatment” in restrictive mental health institutions. In actuality, such rehabilitation facilities are either absent or insufficient in India’s mental healthcare environment. The federal and state governments have yet to implement the Supreme Court’s order to establish or expand such halfway houses, which was issued in 2017. The states have only presented a road map for implementation as of 2020.

Because there is “no health without mental health,” mental health treatment must be addressed seriously and given equal or greater priority than physical health. At the primary healthcare level, governments must encourage mental health and simple access to cost-effective treatment of prevalent mental diseases.

The current state of mental health in India necessitates government policy and resource allocation that is dynamic. By developing nationwide initiatives, there is an urgent need to employ media, social media, and other community services to raise awareness and remove stigma around mental illness.

Appropriate intervention, awareness of the problem, and professional accessibility are the best ways to improve the situation. To bring the issue under control, social, public, and private collaboration is required. To alleviate discomfort and ensure simple access to mental-health facilities for citizens, there is an urgent need to provide psychological care with skilled mental health specialists as first aid. As a case pending before the Supreme Court has pleaded, mental problems must also be covered by insurance.

Aishwarya Says:

I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.

If you are interested in participating in the same, do let me know.

Do follow me on Facebook, Twitter  Youtube and Instagram.

The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.

If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at adv.aishwaryasandeep@gmail.com

We also have a Facebook Group Restarter Moms for Mothers or Women who would like to rejoin their careers post a career break or women who are enterpreneurs.