What did the Delhi High Court rule regarding CRPF disciplinary action?

The court set aside disciplinary action against a CRPF man, stating mental illness is not a disciplinary infraction and is protected under disability laws.

How do the Mental Healthcare Act and RPwD Act apply to CRPF personnel?

These acts reflect legislative intent to protect persons with mental illness from discrimination and ensure they are not subjected to institutional responses that worsen their condition.

What protections does the RPwD Act offer to employees with mental illness?

The RPwD Act prohibits discrimination in employment and mandates employers to shift employees with acquired disabilities to suitable posts with the same pay scale.

Home / Crime and Justice / Court Protects CRPF Man's Mental Health Rights

Court Protects CRPF Man's Mental Health Rights

9 Dec

•

Summary

Delhi High Court set aside disciplinary action against CRPF personnel.
Mental illness is not a stigma or disciplinary infraction, court ruled.
Disability and mental healthcare laws protect individuals from discrimination.

Court Protects CRPF Man's Mental Health Rights

The Delhi High Court has quashed disciplinary proceedings against a CRPF officer, affirming that mental illness cannot be deemed a stigma or a disciplinary issue. The court's decision highlighted the legislative intent behind the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016, to prevent discrimination against individuals with mental health conditions.

The bench found the disciplinary action against the petitioner to be discriminatory and contrary to constitutional protections. It stressed that authorities have a statutory obligation to prevent inhuman or degrading treatment of persons with mental illness, and failure to accommodate such conditions constitutes discrimination.

Consequently, the court set aside the disciplinary action, mandating the disbursement of all consequential benefits to the petitioner. It also ensured the officer's protection under Section 20(4) of the RPwD Act, should he be found unsuitable for his current role.