Author : Saanya Singh, a student at Bharati Vidyapeeth Institute Of Management And Research (BVIMR), New Delhi
Abstract
Mental health has historically remained at the margins of constitutional discourse in India, overshadowed by a dominant focus on physical health and survival-centric interpretations of the right to life. However, with the progressive expansion of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, from mere animal existence to a life of dignity, the recognition of mental wellbeing has gradually entered constitutional jurisprudence. This evolution has been further reinforced by the enactment of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, which adopts a rights-based approach to mental health treatment and access. Recent judicial pronouncements, particularly the Supreme Court’s 2025 recognition of mental wellbeing as an integral component of Article 21, mark a decisive shift from implicit acknowledgment to explicit constitutional protection. This article critically examines the doctrinal evolution of Article 21, analyses judicial trends recognising mental health as a fundamental right, evaluates the statutory framework under the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, and highlights the persistent gap between legal recognition and lived realities. The article argues that while the constitutional promise of mental health protection is now firmly established, its realisation remains contingent upon effective enforcement, institutional accountability, and sustained policy commitment.
INTRODUCTION
Mental health is an indispensable component of human dignity, autonomy, and personal liberty. Yet, for decades, Indian constitutional law treated mental illness primarily through a custodial and welfare-oriented lens rather than a rights-based framework. Individuals suffering from mental health conditions were viewed as objects of care rather than bearers of enforceable constitutional rights. This marginalisation stands in stark contrast to the lived realities of rising psychological distress, increasing suicide rates, workplace burnout, academic pressure, and the mental health impact of social and economic change.
Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Judicial interpretation has transformed this terse provision into a repository of substantive rights, including health, dignity, privacy, and autonomy. The logical culmination of this expansion is the recognition of mental health as an inseparable element of the right to life. This article explores whether Indian constitutional jurisprudence has effectively constitutionalised the right to mental health and whether such recognition has translated into meaningful access and protection.
EVOLUTION OF ARTICLE 21: FROM SURVIVAL TO DIGNITY
The early interpretation of Article 21 was narrow and formalistic, limiting its scope to protection against arbitrary deprivation of life. This changed decisively with Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), where the Supreme Court held that the “procedure” under Article 21 must be just, fair, and reasonable. This judgment laid the foundation for a substantive due process approach in Indian constitutional law.
Subsequent decisions expanded Article 21 to include the right to live with human dignity. In Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi (1981), the Court clarified that the right to life encompasses the right to live with dignity and all that goes along with it, including the bare necessities of life. This dignity-based interpretation became the cornerstone for recognising socio-economic rights within Article 21.
Health soon emerged as a critical component of this expanded right to life. In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984) and Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India (1995), the Court recognised the right to health as integral to Article 21. However, these cases largely focused on physical health, occupational safety, and environmental conditions, leaving mental health implicit and underdeveloped.
MENTAL HEALTH AS AN INHERENT COMPONENT OF THE RIGHT TO LIFE
Mental health cannot be divorced from the concept of dignity. Psychological wellbeing directly affects an individual’s capacity to make choices, exercise autonomy, participate in society, and enjoy personal liberty. Despite this, Indian jurisprudence long treated mental illness either as a medical issue or as a factor relevant only in criminal responsibility.
Judicial sensitivity towards mental health began to emerge more clearly in cases concerning prisoners and persons facing capital punishment. In Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014), the Supreme Court recognised that prolonged delay in execution causes severe mental agony and constitutes a violation of Article 21. Similarly, in Accused ‘X’ v. State of Maharashtra (2019), the Court emphasised the need for mental health evaluation to ensure a fair trial.
These decisions signalled an important shift: mental suffering itself could amount to constitutional injury. However, the recognition remained context-specific and lacked a comprehensive articulation of mental health as an independent fundamental right.
MENTAL HEALTHCARE ACT, 2017: STATUTORY RECOGNITION OF A CONSTITUTIONAL VALUE
The enactment of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 marked a watershed moment in India’s mental health regime. Replacing the Mental Health Act, 1987, the new legislation adopts a rights-based approach aligned with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
Key features of the Act include:
The right to access mental healthcare and treatment funded by the State.
The right to live with dignity and without discrimination.
Informed consent, confidentiality, and autonomy in treatment decisions.
Decriminalisation of attempted suicide by presuming severe stress.
The language and structure of the Act reflect constitutional values embedded in Article 21, i.e. dignity, autonomy, and personal liberty. While the Act does not explicitly declare mental health as a fundamental right, it operationalises constitutional principles through statutory entitlements. This creates a strong normative link between Article 21 and the right to mental health.
JUDICIAL REINFORCEMENT: SUPREME COURT’S 2025 TURNING POINT
A decisive moment in the constitutionalisation of mental health came with the Supreme Court’s 2025 judgment in Sukdeb Saha v. State of Andhra Pradesh. In this case, the Court explicitly recognised mental wellbeing as an integral component of the right to life under Article 21. Moving beyond implicit recognition, the Court held that mental health is not a matter of charity or policy discretion but a constitutional entitlement.
The judgment is significant for three reasons. First, it affirms that psychological wellbeing is as essential as physical health for living a life of dignity. Second, it imposes institutional accountability by directing educational and public institutions to adopt mental health support mechanisms. Third, it bridges the gap between abstract constitutional rights and practical implementation by issuing enforceable guidelines.
This decision represents a doctrinal shift from viewing mental health as ancillary to recognising it as a core constitutional concern. It strengthens the argument that the right to mental health has matured into an enforceable fundamental right under Article 21.
VULNERABLE GROUPS AND THE RIGHT TO MENTAL HEALTH
The denial of mental healthcare disproportionately affects vulnerable populations. Undertrial prisoners, women facing domestic violence, students, and members of marginalised communities often experience heightened psychological distress with limited access to care.
Prison jurisprudence has acknowledged that incarceration does not extinguish fundamental rights. The mental health of prisoners, particularly undertrials subjected to prolonged detention, raises serious Article 21 concerns. Similarly, judicial recognition of psychological harm in cases involving sexual orientation and identity underscores the link between mental wellbeing and constitutional dignity.
Despite this, institutional mental health services for vulnerable groups remain inadequate. The absence of trained professionals, lack of awareness, and social stigma continue to undermine the effective enjoyment of mental health rights.
THE IMPLEMENTATION GAP: RIGHTS WITHOUT REMEDIES
While constitutional and statutory recognition of mental health has advanced significantly, the ground reality presents a stark contrast. India faces an acute shortage of psychiatrists, psychologists, and mental health infrastructure. Rural and semi-urban areas remain particularly underserved. Budgetary allocations for mental health are disproportionately low compared to the scale of the problem.
The District Mental Health Programme, envisioned as a vehicle for decentralised care, suffers from poor execution and monitoring. This disconnect between legal recognition and practical access raises serious constitutional concerns. A right that exists only on paper fails to meet the promise of Article 21.
The judiciary has recognised that failure of the public health system can amount to a violation of the right to life. Applying this reasoning to mental healthcare, systemic neglect may constitute a breach of constitutional obligations.
COMPARATIVE AND INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES
Globally, mental health is increasingly recognised as a human rights issue. Jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom and Australia integrate mental health into public health frameworks with enforceable standards. International instruments emphasise dignity, autonomy, and community-based care.
India’s constitutional jurisprudence, particularly post-2017 and reinforced by the 2025 Supreme Court ruling, aligns with this global shift. However, effective implementation remains the critical challenge separating normative recognition from lived experience.
WAY FORWARD
To fully realise the right to mental health under Article 21, several measures are necessary:
Explicit judicial articulation of mental health as a fundamental right in future cases.
Strengthening enforcement mechanisms under the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017.
Increased budgetary allocation and infrastructure development.
Mandatory mental health services at district and institutional levels.
Judicial monitoring of compliance in cases involving systemic failure.
A constitutional right must be accompanied by remedies, accountability, and access. Without these, the promise of Article 21 remains incomplete.
CONCLUSION
The evolution of Article 21 reflects the dynamic nature of constitutional interpretation in India. From a narrow guarantee against arbitrary deprivation of life, it has grown into a robust source of dignity-based rights. The recognition of mental health as an integral component of the right to life represents a logical and necessary progression of this jurisprudence.
The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 provides the statutory framework to operationalise this right, while recent judicial pronouncements, particularly in 2025, have elevated mental wellbeing to the level of constitutional concern. Yet, the gap between recognition and realisation persists. The right to mental health now exists firmly in law; its challenge lies in becoming a lived reality for every individual. Only when constitutional promise meets practical access will Article 21 truly fulfil its mandate of ensuring life with dignity.
FAQS
Q1. Is the right to mental health expressly recognised as a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution?
No, the Constitution does not expressly mention mental health. However, judicial interpretation of Article 21 has expanded the right to life to include dignity, autonomy, and health, within which mental health is now constitutionally embedded.
Q2. How does Article 21 support the recognition of mental health as a fundamental right?
Article 21 has been interpreted to guarantee a life of dignity rather than mere survival. Since mental wellbeing is essential for dignity, autonomy, and personal liberty, it forms an intrinsic part of the right to life.
Q3. What role does the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 play in constitutionalising mental health rights?
The Act adopts a rights-based framework that operationalises Article 21 values by guaranteeing access to mental healthcare, informed consent, confidentiality, and dignity, thereby reinforcing the constitutional status of mental health.
Q4. Has the Supreme Court explicitly recognised mental health as part of Article 21?
Yes. Recent judicial developments, particularly the 2025 Supreme Court ruling, have explicitly affirmed mental wellbeing as an integral component of the right to life, shifting mental health from a welfare concern to a constitutional entitlement.
Q5. Does failure to provide mental healthcare amount to a violation of Article 21?
Where systemic failure, lack of infrastructure, or institutional neglect deprives individuals of access to mental healthcare, such failure may amount to a violation of Article 21, consistent with the Court’s health jurisprudence.
Q6. How are vulnerable groups affected by the denial of mental health rights?
Undertrial prisoners, students, women facing domestic violence, and marginalised communities experience disproportionate mental health burdens and limited access to care, raising serious constitutional concerns under Article 21.
Q7. Is the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 effectively implemented in India?
Despite progressive provisions, implementation remains weak due to inadequate funding, shortage of professionals, rural-urban disparities, and lack of institutional accountability, resulting in a significant gap between law and reality.
Q8. Can courts enforce the right to mental health?
Yes. Courts can enforce statutory obligations under the Mental Healthcare Act and issue directions where non-implementation infringes Article 21, especially in cases involving institutional or systemic failure.
Q9. How does international law influence India’s mental health jurisprudence?
International human rights standards emphasise dignity, autonomy, and community-based care, influencing India’s shift toward a rights-based mental health framework and strengthening constitutional interpretation.
Q10. What is the future of mental health rights under Article 21?
The future lies in explicit judicial recognition, stronger enforcement mechanisms, enhanced public investment, and sustained institutional accountability to ensure that the constitutional promise translates into real access.
REFERENCES
Key Constitutional & Statutory References
Constitution of India, Article 21
Mental Healthcare Act, 2017
Cases Cited (Landmark Supreme Court Cases)
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248
Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, UT of Delhi, (1981) 1 SCC 608
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 161
Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India, (1995) 3 SCC 42
Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India, (2014) 3 SCC 1
Accused ‘X’ v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 7 SCC 1
Sukdeb Saha v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Supreme Court of India, Judgment dated 25 July 2025
Authoritative Reports & Policy Documents
National Mental Health Policy of India, 2014
World Health Organization, Mental Health and Human Rights Reports
National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) – Accidental Deaths & Suicides in India (latest edition)
Academic & Legal Commentary (Selective)
B. Shiva Rao, The Constitution of India: A Historical Perspective
Upendra Baxi, The Right to Health and Article 21
LiveLaw / SCC Online analysis on mental health jurisprudence (post-MHCA)
