Authority: High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital
Order Date: 23.09.2026
Case Overview
- Petitioner: Ankush Chauhan (appearing in person) filed Habeas Corpus Petition No. 44 of 2026 against State of Uttarakhand and respondents, chiefly respondent No. 7 – Ashirwad Wellness Samiti, Dehradun.
- Petitioner alleged unlawful detention by the Samiti against his will; he had been confined for 42 days and sought immediate release to return home amid a divorce dispute with his wife, who allegedly admitted him.
- Respondent No. 7 contended that the petitioner could leave if he wished and that the Samiti was operating under the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017.
- The Court earlier directed the In‑charge of the Samiti to produce valid custody documents, list of enrolled doctors, their qualifications, assignment letters, and remuneration details, and asked the District Magistrate, Dehradun, to report on the Samiti’s legal basis of operation.
- The District Magistrate, joining via video conference, reported that the Samiti’s registration had expired on 09.08.2025, no renewal had been effected, the institution had recently changed its place of operation, and it lacked legal authority to run the facility; it purported to act under the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017.
- The Samiti produced some documents, including a provisional registration (not expired) and a pending application for permanent registration filed in 2025; however, the Court noted the application for renewal was only submitted the previous day and left the matter unresolved.
- The Court examined Section 89 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, which mandates admission of a person with mental illness only after independent examination by a psychiatrist and a mental health professional/medical practitioner, with specific criteria regarding risk of self‑harm, violence, or inability to care for oneself.
- Respondent No. 7 stated that on 12.08.2026 the petitioner was examined by Dr. Sanjibani Panigrahi of Shri Mahant Indresh Hospital, Dehradun, and that blood test results indicated alcohol and drug‑related issues, leading to admission.
- The Court found that the statutory requirement of dual independent certification under Section 89(1)(a) was not satisfied; no such certificate was produced.
- The Chief Medical Officer’s report dated 22.09.2025 recorded the petitioner’s addiction to ganja and alcohol but did not constitute a diagnosis of mental illness as defined under Section 2(s) of the Act.
- Consequently, the Court concluded that there was no legal basis for the petitioner’s confinement, as the Samiti lacked valid registration, proper authority, and compliance with the 2017 Act.
Final Outcome
- The Court ordered the immediate release of Ankush Chauhan, stating he is free to go wherever he wishes.
- The petition was disposed of accordingly.
Topics: Mental Health Law, Habeas Corpus