VidhiAagaz
International Journal ofLaw Management & Humanities
ISSN 2581-5369 · Open access
International Journal ofLaw Management & Humanities
Open accessArticleVol. 3 No. II (2020)pp. 984–988

Legislative Commentary: The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017

TK
Tarsh KhannaStudent of Symbiosis Law School, Pune, India
View PDF
11views0downloads
Published 16 May 2020 · pp. 984–988 · Vol. 3 No. II (2020)
Abstract

A Hamletian Dilemma- To Mercy or not to mercy. What are the responsibilities of the state when it decides to punish a person for a crime? The debate whether to retain or abolish the provision of mercy petition is unending. The negative implications of the provision have, in multiple cases, led to a public and media outcry for failure in the administration of justice, such as in the case of Afzal Guru, Nirbhaya, etc. This article traces the expediency of the powers to grant pardon prescribed in the Indian constitution, and the jurisprudence developed in the court of law. The article commences with the origin and the history of the provision, then explains its scope and intricacies. Furthermore, it justifies the necessity of the provision in spite of its repercussions, in the modern civilized society.

Keywords
Mental Healthcare Act 2017Mental healthRight to treatmentAdvance directiveDecriminalisation of suicideLegislative commentary

How to cite

Tarsh Khanna, Legislative Commentary: The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, 3 Int'l J. L. Mgmt. & Human. 984 (2020).

Cite this article

Tarsh Khanna, Legislative Commentary: The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, 3 Int'l J. L. Mgmt. & Human. 984 (2020).
Chat with us