Patna: In a significant intervention highlighting systemic failures in mental healthcare, the Patna High Court has taken suo motu cognizance of the practice of keeping cured or stabilized patients in hospitals beyond their recovery period. The court ruled that retaining such patients even for a single extra day violates their fundamental rights under the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life with dignity.
The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) stems from an inspection report submitted by the Bihar State Legal Services Authority (BSLSA) on February 17, 2026, following a visit to the Bihar Institute of Mental Health and Allied Sciences (BIMHAS) in Koelwar, Bhojpur district. BIMHAS serves as the state’s primary dedicated mental health facility, but it struggles with severe capacity constraints.
Inadequate Infrastructure and Rehabilitation Gaps
BIMHAS currently has around 180 beds, with an additional 140 under construction—an insufficient number given Bihar’s vast population and the rising incidence of mental health issues. The inspection revealed multiple shortcomings, including poor coordination for post-treatment rehabilitation and environmental disturbances such as nearby sand mining that affect the therapeutic atmosphere.
The core problem identified by the court is the lack of robust rehabilitation mechanisms. Cured or stabilized patients often remain institutionalized because of extremely limited options for community reintegration. The state’s Mental Illness Cured Home (MI Home) under the Social Welfare Department offers only 50 beds each for men and women, described by the court as “grossly insufficient.” Across Bihar, there are just two half-way homes, located in Gaya and Patna.
While the state government has claimed that recovered patients are shifted to half-way homes where they receive vocational training, the court observed that no concrete details were provided on training outcomes, employment linkages, or financial support needed for self-sufficiency. This gap not only blocks beds for new patients requiring urgent care but also contravenes key provisions of the Mental Healthcare Act, including the right to community living (Section 19), protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (Section 20), and access to less restrictive environments.
Scale of the Crisis
Mental health challenges in Bihar have been growing steadily. Between 2022 and late 2025, over 1.26 lakh people received counselling or treatment through district hospitals and outpatient departments (OPDs). The national Tele-MANAS helpline has handled more than 36,000 calls from the state since its launch in November 2022. However, the surge in demand has exposed weaknesses in decentralized services and overall infrastructure.
The court has emphasized that mental health forms an integral part of the right to life with dignity, drawing on Supreme Court precedents. The 2017 Act mandates a shift from long-term institutionalization to community-based care, yet implementation in Bihar remains inadequate.
Court’s Directives and Broader Implications
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Harish Kumar has issued notices to senior state officials, police, prison authorities, and the Union government. The court has sought detailed reports on:
- The functioning of Mental Health Review Boards and the State Mental Health Authority.
- Plans for expanding half-way homes, sheltered accommodations, vocational training, and employment support.
- Immediate infrastructure improvements at BIMHAS, including halting disruptive activities like nearby mining and enhancing road connectivity.
- Establishment of a toll-free helpline for wandering mentally ill persons, clear police protocols under Section 100 of the Act, legal aid through “Mano Nyay” clinics, and public awareness campaigns.
This judicial push underscores a national concern previously flagged by bodies like the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), where thousands of cured patients continue to languish in institutions across India due to family abandonment, stigma, and lack of community support systems.
Experts note that Bihar, like many low-resource states, faces shortages of mental health specialists, weak integration of mental health services into primary and district-level care, and societal barriers that hinder recovery and reintegration.
The Patna High Court has conducted multiple hearings on the matter, pushing for actionable reforms rather than mere paper compliance. The outcome of this PIL could set a precedent for strengthening rehabilitation frameworks not just in Bihar but across similar states, ensuring that treatment leads to genuine recovery and dignified community living rather than perpetual institutionalization.
As proceedings continue, the focus remains on bridging the critical gap between clinical recovery and societal reintegration to address Bihar’s deepening mental health crisis effectively.
About The Author
