abstract: 'The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 (MHCA) of India is a landmark and

  welcome step towards centering persons with mental illness (PwMI) and

  recognizing their rights concerning their treatment and care decisions

  and ensuring the availability of mental healthcare services. As

  mentioned in its preamble, the Act is a step towards aligning India''s

  laws or mental health (MH) policy with the United Nations Convention on

  the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), which India ratified

  in 2007. Amidst several positives, the implementation of the Act has

  been marred by certain practical issues which are partly attributed to

  the inherent conceptual limitations.Countries across the globe, both

  High Income-and Low-and Middle-Income Countries, have enacted

  legislation to ensure that the rights of treatment and care of PwMI are

  respected, protected, and fulfilled. They have also provisioned

  quasi-judicial bodies (Mental Health Review Boards MHRBs/tribunals) for

  ensuring these rights. However, their structure and function vary.This

  paper compares the constitution and functioning of review boards across

  different countries and intends to provide future directions for the

  effective implementation and functioning of the MHRB under India''s

  MHCA.This review found that effective implementation of the MHRB under

  MHCA is compromised by an ambitious, six-membered, constitution of the

  MHRB, lack of clarity about the realistic combination of the quorum to

  adjudicate decisions, inadequate human and financial resources, and an

  overstretched area of functioning.Although MHRB has been envisaged as a

  quasi-judicial authority to ensure the rights of PwMI, it needs to be

  made more pragmatic. The size and composition of the MHRB currently

  envisaged is likely to be a barrier in the establishment of the MHRB as

  well as its functioning. A smaller composition (3-5 membered) involving

  one psychiatrist, one judicial/legal member, and at least one PwMI or

  member from civil society having lived experience of working with PwMI

  or caregiver, could be a more pragmatic approach. The passing of this

  law also necessitates increasing the overall health budget, especially

  the mental health budget with funds earmarked specifically for the

  implementation of the law, which necessarily includes setting up the

  MHRB. An evaluation of the implementation of the MHRB, including its

  determinants, would be a useful step in this direction.'
affiliation: 'Gupta, S (Corresponding Author), All India Inst Med Sci AIIMS, Dept
  Psychiat, Bhopal 462022, Madhya Pradesh, India.

  Gupta, Snehil, All India Inst Med Sci AIIMS, Dept Psychiat, Bhopal 462022, Madhya
  Pradesh, India.

  Gill, Neeraj, Univ Canberra, Hlth Res Inst, Canberra, ACT, Australia.

  Gill, Neeraj, Griffith Univ, Sch Med \& Dent, Gold Cost, Qld, Australia.

  Gill, Neeraj, Gold Coast Hlth QLD Australia, Mental Hlth \& Specialist Serv, Gold
  Cost, Qld, Australia.

  Misra, Maitreyi, Natl Law Univ, Mental Hlth \& Legal Justice Syst, Delhi, India.'
article-number: '101774'
author: Gupta, Snehil and Misra, Maitreyi and Gill, Neeraj
author-email: 'snehil2161@gmail.com

  maitreyi.misra@nludelhi.ac.in

  neeraj.gill@griffith.edu.au'
author_list:
- family: Gupta
  given: Snehil
- family: Misra
  given: Maitreyi
- family: Gill
  given: Neeraj
da: '2023-09-28'
doi: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2021.101774
earlyaccessdate: JAN 2022
eissn: 1873-6386
files: []
issn: 0160-2527
journal: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LAW AND PSYCHIATRY
keywords: 'Mental health legislation; Psychiatry; Review board; Tribunal; Mental

  health care act; India'
language: English
month: MAR-APR
number-of-cited-references: '46'
orcid-numbers: GUPTA, SNEHIL/0000-0001-5498-2917
papis_id: 9107155a4c3cf5fbaca199f6095145e0
ref: Gupta2022mentalhealth
tags:
- review
times-cited: '0'
title: 'Mental health review board under the Mental Health Care Act (2017), India:
  A critique and learning from review boards of other nations'
type: Review
unique-id: WOS:000791993900003
usage-count-last-180-days: '0'
usage-count-since-2013: '3'
volume: '81'
web-of-science-categories: Law; Psychiatry
year: '2022'