Amend lunacy law

NirmaJa Srinivasan

"Hey; I am normal but not recovered", yelled out Roni, running across the road. "I am lucky that I have a job, though not sure for how long", he added."But I am amused that my parents are on the look-out for a guardian for me;they also want me to get married.

Isn't it crazy? Why not two- in-one - a guardian and a wife thrown in one?" he laughed and said.

The observation of this 38year-old, under treatment for chronic mental disorder, raises questions about guardianship, normalcy and recovery that the law fails to recognise.

In response to one's search for a definition of recovery; Gayathri Ramprasad in Oregon, US, writes, "Recovery is a reality...Recovery enables me to revive lost dreams and restore broken bonds. Recovery paves the road to a life of love and fulfilment. Recovery makes me whole and human again. Recovery empowers me to make meaning out of madness, and transform trauma into triumph".

She was echoing Roni's optimism.For Roni's parents, however, these small victories bring no solace.Their search for that mythological two-in-one guardian angel is familiar to millions of family carers of mentally ill (MI) persons who stabilise after a decade of regimented medication and rehabilitation and fall in the normalbut-not-recovered category.

Guardianship for mentally ill wards is one of the most outstanding long-term concerns of parents and family members of MI persons, because time oscillates between recovery and normalcy; between the present and the future, between a guardian and a spouse. Unfortunately;neither is easy to get.

Guardianship for MI persons comes under the purview of Mental Health Act, 1987. Chapter VI from Section 50-77 provides for judicial inquisition, custody of the person and management of his property after the court is satisfied about the person's incapacity to undertake such financial responsibilities.

Known as 'divesting the MI person of his/her property due to incapacity to manage it', the Act does not make any provision for MI persons to get guardians just to look after their affairs and not divest them of their property.

Roni is capable of self-care and handles his finances and bank accounts, though one cannot say whether he will ever be able to earn a proper livelihood.His present being is no guarantee of his future improving in a progressively linear fashion. So his parents are keen to get him a guardian for looking after him now and after their demise.They also want to ensure that the family pension due to him as the dependent handicapped son of a government pensioner reaches him on time.

Once Roni's parents can decide on a guardian, would it not help him graduate from normalcy to recovery?
Unfortunately; the Mental Health Act does not recognise the legitimate authority of Roni's parents as natural guardians to appoint legal guardians.

The Act states under Section 53 and Section 54 (3) that the district court or district collector may appoint any suitable person to be the guardian and/ or manager of the property.Civil pension rules on family pension, also adopted by the ministry of defence, maintain that it is for the court and not parents to appoint legal guardians for persons with MI. So complicated is the legal situation that it becomes next to impossible to access pension for MIpersons.Worse still, Roni may have to be produced before the judge to prove his credentials as a mentally challenged person, although he is able to look after himself and his property - this is an inevitable part of the pension package.The law only recognises polarities, illness or the lack of it, but reality is a seesaw between recovery and normalcy; the oscillation being the very nature of mental illness."Recovery embodies the process of reclaiming hope, humanity; equity and dignity - birthrights that were stripped by mental illness and society at large", declares Gayathri in her write-up on recovery. Is it not time to amend the Mental Health Act so that we can support Roni's parents to help him recover?The writer is with Action for Mental Illness, Bangalore.