Renaming mental health centres: Kerala HC asks govt to hear objections by medical bodies
The Kerala High Court has allowed the Indian Medical Association (IMA) and the Indian Psychiatric Society (IPS) to raise their objections to the Kerala government's decision to rename state-run mental health centres as ‘Happiness and Wellness Centres’.A Division Bench of Justices Devan Ramachandran and Basant Balaji permitted the two medical bodies to submit their concerns before the competent authority of the state government after Senior Advocate V V Asokan, appearing for the IMA and IPS, informed the court that they had objections to the new name.The organisations have been directed to submit their suggestions and objections in writing to the Principal Secretary of the Health Department by September 14. The government will subsequently hear representatives of the IMA and IPS, as well as any other interested doctors or officials, at 11 am on September 22. The court has directed that the outcome of the deliberations be reported to it.IMA and IPS had raised their objections on September 8, and approached HC against the name change. The organisations have argued that replacing terms such as ‘mental health’ or ‘psychiatry’ could obscure the medical nature of the services and create difficulties under existing laws and regulatory frameworks. They have also maintained that changing the name would not address the underlying issues at the centres, including infrastructure problems, overcrowding and shortages of staff.The development comes days after the state government formally notified the renaming of its mental health centres. Advocate General K Jaju Babu informed the court that the notification was issued on September 7 and placed it on record.The renaming followed an earlier direction from the High Court to the government to examine whether the term ‘Mental Health Centre’ itself contributed to the stigma surrounding mental illness.Why did the High Court suggest a change in name?The issue arose during proceedings concerning the conditions at government-run mental health centres. The case is a suo motu public interest litigation initiated in 1996 following the Supreme Court's directions in Sheela Barse v Union of India.On August 21, the Bench had asked the government to consider whether the centres should be given a name that could reduce the stigma attached to mental illness. The suggestion had been made by amicus curiae Sathyasree Priya, who proposed names such as ‘Institutes of Behavioural Management’.The Bench had made it clear that it was not prescribing any particular alternative name, but questioned why institutions dealing with mental health should continue to carry a label that could itself contribute to stigma.The court had also noted that hospitals treating physical ailments are not generally described as ‘Centres of Physical Health’, and said the government should consider the issue as a matter of policy.As per LiveLaw report the court orally stated, “Our intention is if someone asks 'Where were you?', they can say 'Wellness Centre' and not 'Psychiatric' hospital...The popular culture has made it like this. Even though it is called a Mental Health Centre, people still refer to it as Oolanpara or Kuthiravattam."The Bench had stressed that the issue was not adversarial and that its primary concern was the welfare of patients and protecting vulnerable people from stigma.The state subsequently decided to rename the centres as Happiness and Wellness Centres and issued the notification on September 7.During Tuesday's hearing, the Bench indicated that it continued to see merit in changing the terminology, while also hearing the concerns raised by the IMA and IPS.The court questioned whether the medical organisations' position was that the words ‘mental health’ or ‘psychiatric’ must necessarily form part of the name because the institutions function under the Mental Health Care Act.The Bench also explained that one of its objectives in considering a new name was to change the way society perceives people who seek treatment at these institutions.The judges referred to the continuing social stigma surrounding such facilities, observing that even when the official designation is ‘Mental Health Centre’, people often identify them by the names of the locations associated with them, such as Oolanpara and Kuthiravattam.The court said the intention behind the proposed change was to make it easier for a person to identify their visit as being to a wellness centre rather than a psychiatric institution, thereby helping change public attitudes towards mental healthcare.
THE Kerala High Court has allowed the Indian Medical Association (IMA) and the Indian Psychiatric Society (IPS) to raise their objections to the Kerala government's decision to rename state-run mental health centres as ‘Happiness and Wellness Centres’.
A Division Bench of Justices Devan Ramachandran and Basant Balaji permitted the two medical bodies to submit their concerns before the competent authority of the state government after Senior Advocate V V Asokan, appearing for the IMA and IPS, informed the court that they had objections to the new name.
The organisations have been directed to submit their suggestions and objections in writing to the Principal Secretary of the Health Department by September 14.
The government will subsequently hear representatives of the IMA and IPS, as well as any other interested doctors or officials, at 11 am on September 22. The court has directed that the outcome of the deliberations be reported to it.
IMA and IPS had raised their objections on September 8, and approached HC against the name change.
The organisations have argued that replacing terms such as ‘mental health’ or ‘psychiatry’ could obscure the medical nature of the services and create difficulties under existing laws and regulatory frameworks.
They have also maintained that changing the name would not address the underlying issues at the centres, including infrastructure problems, overcrowding and shortages of staff.
The development comes days after the state government formally notified the renaming of its mental health centres. Advocate General K Jaju Babu informed the court that the notification was issued on September 7 and placed it on record.
The renaming followed an earlier direction from the High Court to the government to examine whether the term ‘Mental Health Centre’ itself contributed to the stigma surrounding mental illness.
Why did the High Court suggest a change in name?
The issue arose during proceedings concerning the conditions at government-run mental health centres. The case is a suo motu public interest litigation initiated in 1996 following the Supreme Court's directions in Sheela Barse v Union of India.
On August 21, the Bench had asked the government to consider whether the centres should be given a name that could reduce the stigma attached to mental illness.
The suggestion had been made by amicus curiae Sathyasree Priya, who proposed names such as ‘Institutes of Behavioural Management’.
The Bench had made it clear that it was not prescribing any particular alternative name, but questioned why institutions dealing with mental health should continue to carry a label that could itself contribute to stigma.
The court had also noted that hospitals treating physical ailments are not generally described as ‘Centres of Physical Health’, and said the government should consider the issue as a matter of policy.
As per LiveLaw report the court orally stated, “Our intention is if someone asks 'Where were you?', they can say 'Wellness Centre' and not 'Psychiatric' hospital...The popular culture has made it like this. Even though it is called a Mental Health Centre, people still refer to it as Oolanpara or Kuthiravattam."
The Bench had stressed that the issue was not adversarial and that its primary concern was the welfare of patients and protecting vulnerable people from stigma.
The state subsequently decided to rename the centres as Happiness and Wellness Centres and issued the notification on September 7.
During Tuesday's hearing, the Bench indicated that it continued to see merit in changing the terminology, while also hearing the concerns raised by the IMA and IPS.
The court questioned whether the medical organisations' position was that the words ‘mental health’ or ‘psychiatric’ must necessarily form part of the name because the institutions function under the Mental Health Care Act.
The Bench also explained that one of its objectives in considering a new name was to change the way society perceives people who seek treatment at these institutions.
The judges referred to the continuing social stigma surrounding such facilities, observing that even when the official designation is ‘Mental Health Centre’, people often identify them by the names of the locations associated with them, such as Oolanpara and Kuthiravattam.
The court said the intention behind the proposed change was to make it easier for a person to identify their visit as being to a wellness centre rather than a psychiatric institution, thereby helping change public attitudes towards mental healthcare.
