“Court Calls for ‘Pragmatic Approach’ in Assessing Mental Capacity Under Rule 15, Order XXXII, CPC

In a landmark decision dated 21 August, 2023, a bench comprising Justice A and Justice B has set aside a lower court’s ruling on the mental capacity of a petitioner, urging for a more “pragmatic approach” in such assessments.

The case centered on Rule 15 of Order XXXII of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which deals with the mental capacity of individuals involved in litigation. The Court distinguished between ‘a person adjudged of unsound mind’ and ‘a person incapable of protecting his interest due to mental infirmity’, noting that the former involves judicial inquiry, whereas the latter involves the court’s own inquiry.

The Justices criticized the trial court for relying solely on “unconvincing answers” from the petitioner. They called for a more comprehensive process, stating that the court can “either suo motu or on application conduct exams or medical tests to determine mental capacity.”

The ruling also deemed the trial court’s approach as “insufficient” and set aside its decision. The higher court emphasized that belief in religious matters cannot be deemed as a sign of mental incapacity.

The judgment cited previous cases such as Kasturibai and others v. Anguri Chaudhary and Sharda v. Dharmpal, underlining the need for a thorough inquiry in matters of mental capacity.

Legal experts view this ruling as a significant step toward a more nuanced and sensitive approach in dealing with cases involving mental health assessments. The court has directed all lower courts to strictly adhere to the guidelines laid down in this judgment.

Date of Decision: 21 August 2023

GOPAKUMAR vs MADHUSOODANAN NAIR