The Constitution of India serves as the supreme law of the land, guiding the nation through its well-defined principles and provisions. Over the past 75 years as a Republic, it has been instrumental in navigating complex challenges while ensuring the smooth functioning of the country. In addition to the Constitution, various laws—some originating from the pre-independence era and others implemented more recently—have played a pivotal role in shaping societal perspectives.

The legal system, through landmark judgments and amendments, has significantly influenced various professions, including psychology. Certain judgments have profoundly impacted the field, transforming its functioning and altering societal views on mental health and related issues.

Below, we explore key verdicts every psychology student and professional should be familiar with:

1. Selvi vs. State of Karnataka (2010)

This case addressed the ethical and legal implications of forensic psychological tests such as narcoanalysis, polygraph, and brain-mapping conducted on individuals accused in criminal cases without their consent.

• Key Highlights of the Judgment:

  • The Supreme Court ruled that informed and explicit consent is mandatory for any forensic psychological testing.

  • Such consent must be voluntary and free from coercion.

  • Results of these tests are to be treated as corroborative evidence rather than conclusive proof, as they are not entirely reliable.

  • The judgment emphasized that these tests should not infringe upon Article 20(3) (protection against self-incrimination) and Article 21 (right to life and liberty) of the Constitution.

• Impact on Psychology: This landmark decision set a precedent for psychologists, ensuring that they are not compelled to engage in coercive or non-consensual practices. It established a balance between leveraging scientific advancements in criminal investigations and safeguarding fundamental human rights.

2. Maruti Dubal vs. State of Maharashtra (1986)

This case marked an important step toward the decriminalization of Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which criminalized attempted suicide.

• Case Background: Ex-constable Maruti Dubal, suffering from mental illness, attempted suicide and was subsequently arrested under IPC Section 309.

• Verdict: The court ruled that individuals attempting suicide due to mental health issues should be provided with proper treatment and rehabilitation instead of facing punitive action.

• It was argued that penalizing such individuals violated Article 21 (right to life and liberty), which also encompasses the right to die.

• Impact on Psychology: This judgment introduced a compassionate and humanitarian approach to addressing mental health crises. It laid the groundwork for subsequent rulings and reforms, including the Mental Health Care Act, 2017, which prioritized care and rehabilitation over punishment.

3. P. Rathinam vs. Union of India (1994)

This case further examined the constitutionality of Section 309 IPC, building on the principles established in the Maruti Dubal case.

• Key Highlights of the Verdict:

  • The Supreme Court declared Section 309 unconstitutional, holding that it violated Article 14 (right to equality) and Article 21 (right to life).

  • The judgment emphasized the need for a humane approach to individuals in distress, promoting treatment over criminalization.

• Significance for Mental Health: This ruling reinforced the importance of a compassionate perspective on mental health. It influenced future decisions, including the development of the Mental Health Act, 2017, which underscored the need for accessible care and decriminalization of suicide attempts.

4. Aruna Shanbaug Case (2011)This

This case focused on the legal and ethical considerations surrounding euthanasia in India.

• Background: Aruna Shanbaug, a nurse, was sexually assaulted in 1973, resulting in oxygen deprivation to her brain. She remained in a Persistent Vegetative State (PVS) for 42 years, cared for by staff at KEM Hospital. In 2011, journalist Pinki Virani filed a petition seeking euthanasia on Aruna's behalf, bringing the debate on the right to die with dignity into the legal domain.

• Key Highlights of the Verdict:

  • The Supreme Court allowed passive euthanasia under strict regulations, while active euthanasia remained illegal.

  • The judgment emphasized the extension of Article 21 to include the right to die with dignity in cases of critical and irreversible conditions.

• Impact on Mental Health: The case highlighted the urgent need for palliative care in India and brought greater attention to the dignity and rights of chronically ill patients. It also sparked conversations about end-of-life care and its psychological implications for patients and their families.

Conclusion

These landmark judgments have not only shaped public perceptions but also contributed significantly to the development of mental health care in India. They reflect a progressive and rights-based approach to mental health, emphasizing treatment, dignity, and rehabilitation over punishment or coercion.

For psychology students and professionals, understanding these rulings is crucial in appreciating the evolving legal framework and its implications for the field of psychology and mental health.