Patna HC says mental health of people 'least priority' to Bihar govt
Patna, Feb 13: The Patna High Court has said it appears that mental health of people and their treatment are the "least priority" of the Bihar government, and directed the chief secretary to take all steps to ensure establishment of State Mental Health Authority.
A division bench, comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice S Kumar, expressed shock over the absence of such an authority in the state.
"It appears that mental health of a person and treatment of those who are in need, more so during the time of Covid-19, is the least priority of the state government," the bench said.
It heard a public interest litigation, filed by Akanksha Maviya, which sought direction from the court to the state government to establish a legitimate and functional mental health authority with adherence to the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 and start a helpline and counselling facilities.
The government had earlier submitted an affidavit on the issue as sought by the bench.
The Act deals with establishment and composition of the state authority for people with mental illness. The purpose of the law is to provide healthcare services to them and to protect, promote and fulfil their rights.
The bench noticed that a "step for establishing the authority commenced only in 2020, that too, with the publication of an advertisement in the newspaper and since then nothing has been done to expedite the process".
It also observed that even the affidavit did not disclose the time limit within which the process of setting up the mental health authority would be completed.
"Shockingly, as is now evident from the affidavit filed by the state, the said authority has yet not been constituted.... we are constrained to direct the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, to forthwith take all steps ensuring establishment of the authority as stipulated under Section-45 of the Act," the bench said in its order on February 10.
It also directed the chief secretary to file an affidavit of compliance, indicating the latest status before February 25, the next date of hearing.
"We also expect the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar to indicate the steps taken for complying with the other provisions of the Statute, the deficiencies pointed out by the petitioner in the writ petition, and the suggestion given for proper and effective implementation," the bench added.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Congress using hijab issue to pacify minority anger, alleges Karnataka LoP R Ashoka
Bengaluru: Leader of Opposition in the Assembly R. Ashoka has accused the Congress government of using the hijab issue to placate what he described as discontent among minority voters after the Davanagere by-election.
In a post on X on Wednesday, Ashoka alleged that the state government, instead of addressing issues such as price rise, corruption, farmers’ distress and law and order, was attempting to retain its minority vote base by reviving the hijab issue.
Referring to the 2022 dress code introduced by the BJP government, which prohibited hijab in schools and colleges, Ashoka said the Karnataka High Court had upheld the policy and emphasised the importance of discipline in educational institutions.
He questioned the Congress government’s move to revisit the issue and asked whether setting aside the court-backed policy to benefit one community could be described as secularism.
Ashoka further alleged that while the government was willing to permit hijab, it continued to prohibit saffron shawls.
He accused the government of dividing students on religious lines rather than treating schools and colleges as spaces of equality.
Drawing a comparison with Mamata Banerjee’s government in West Bengal, Ashoka claimed that excessive appeasement politics had harmed the state and warned that the Congress in Karnataka could face a similar political response.
He said voters in Karnataka would teach the Congress a lesson for what he termed “vote-bank politics” and for compromising constitutional and judicial principles.
