INTRODUCTION
In a rather rare case recently dismissed by the Supreme Court of India a young man went to court stating that a mysterious ‘machine’ was controlling his brain. This unusual kind of a petition gained attention because of its unusual nature with the petitioner requesting the apex court to issue an order of dismantling this alleged mind controlling tech. The Supreme Court, however, let off the plea, evidential and on the basis of the rather ludicrous nature of the petition.
BACKGROUND
Indian judiciary sometimes comes across with such affairs which are not proper legal issues, but are sometimes beyond rationale and legal proceedings. This kind of petition falls under a group of petitions based on outrageous claims which the judiciary regards as being without merit or as being frivolous. Such cases sometimes seem to be connected with the psychical state of the petitioner, so the judiciary has to balance between impartial consideration of the case and not wasting its resources.
Petitions of a similar nature have been raised from time to time, whereby guidelines need to be developed to deal with person/s possibly suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and possibly other mental illnesses. Judiciary branch has received much attention on how it handles cases especially where the petitioners are undergo mental issues.
KEY ASPECTS
1.The Petitioner’s Claim: The petitioner said that there was a machine that he could not see but which dominated his thoughts and actions. This plea also requested a order from the Supreme Court to de activate what he called this device. The details about how or by whom this machine was supposedly operated where not adequately revealed, there was no factual, scientific or even physical evidence presented.
2.Court’s Response: This humble writer first had a look at the petition filed and soon the Supreme Court of India threw it out calling the privilege a plea “absolutely bizarre”. The court observed that there was no substance in the allegations raised and the petition does not warrant an exercise of jurisdiction of the court. Further, the court dismissed the allegations as being farfetched, and a reminder to the judiciary that will not entertain any such frivolous cases.
3.Judicial Considerations: The decision is aligned with the court position concerning reconciliation of judicial impartiality with mental health issues. Where such options it has to be crucial to analyze the nature of petition sometimes it has to advise the petitioner to seek medical help instead of seeking this legal help because the problem in question has root psychological problem.the nature of petition sometimes it has to advise the petitioner to seek medical help instead of seeking this legal help because the problem in question has root psychological problem.
CONCLUSION
This case particularly echoes the need for juridical moderation when handling such contentious appeals. Besides the dismissal of the case by the Supreme Court it is evident that the principle of evidence is crucial in any legal processes; and again the question of consideration of referral system to mental health within the judicial systems may be in the offing. With the increased focus on mental health such cases may cause debates regarding protective of judicial resources as well as people who may need more therapy rather than the legal help.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY- PAYAL DEVNANI
