Byline: James. Antony On Drafting a New Mental Health Act Since some time the Indian Psychiatric Society has decided to go for a new Mental Health Act.[sup] [1],]2] Let us hope that the collective efforts of the membership of the Society would yield results that would, in the long run, be for the enduring good of mentally ill, in the country! Meanwhile, we must be conscious of the fact that in early 1990s, when the Mental Health Act-1987 arrived, our reckoning was that the new 'Magna Carta' would usher in an era of dignified and humane care for all those who are mentally ill. The euphoria of that time was short-lived. Soon, many psychiatrists from all over India perceived the new Act as a huge let-down![sup] [2],[3],[4],[5] Why such a total turnaround took place, within a short period? That too, even before most state governments had put in place 'Mental Health Rules', for their respective jurisdictions? These are points that need to be carefully analysed. After all, 'the legislative policy' of the 1987 Act, as highlighted in its 'Statement of Objects and Reasons', is on the whole, quite praiseworthy. Just two words in the Act, namely 'Licensing' and 'Inspectors' are the ones that are totally unacceptable to many a critic! Of course, the word 'licensing' has really earned notoriety in this whole country, for many decades, probably ever since independence! Till recently, we had wide currency for phrases like 'license-permit-raj'! And as for 'inspector', all statutory inspectors in this country have the odor of 'gutter inspector', about whom the Mahatma himself had commented about, long ago! But despite all these, a civilized society cannot do away completely, with regulatory mechanisms, in vital sectors. It is true that in a society steeped in corruption, licensing could be a milching cow for all and sundry. But what is the remedy? Has the profession no responsibility to put in place a surveillance system that would ensure that only competent persons, committed to provide good-quality services are able to run 'total-care' institutions, like mental hospitals? Or is it our case that 'as I am a qualified psychiatrist, the whole world has no business to question my honesty?' A stand that there is no need for any kind of licensing and inspection is not something that legal experts or human right activists would accept. In these kinds of things, one has to be realistic. The mentally ill people in 'total-care' or 'custodial' hospitals are not exactly like other patients in hospitals, who mostly would be staying along with a close relative or friend. Also those patients with no mental infirmity would mostly be in a position to protect themselves against high-handedness from any quarters. But the mentally ill are different. They would need some legal provisions, to protect their basic human rights.[sup] [3],[6] This is a point that the profession has to concede. True, any licensing system needs to be rational and must have a clear purpose of realizing objectives stated in the preamble of the Act. Also, the procedure has to be simplified. The fee has to be fixed with the clear purpose of optimally regulating the system. The idea should not be, merely to bring in more money to the government kitty. There has to be a set of 'Rules' that would ensure that all those noble objectives, enumerated in the 'Statement of Objects and Reasons', are achieved. And for this, the profession at the state level has to get actively involved to make sure that State Mental Health Rules are framed thoughtfully, taking into account local conditions also. The endeavor has to be to suggest clear-cut acceptable alternatives, rather than blindly objecting to all kinds of 'inspections' and 'licensing'. Licensing and inspection has to be limited to total care institutions, where patients stay without bystanders. Other places should only have those regulations that are applicable to all General Hospitals. …