adequate, timely and human health care. The fundamental aim of mental health legislation is to protect, promote and improve lives and mental well- being of citizens. It also plays a vital role in laying down the terms and conditions of mental health care and protecting the rights of disadvantaged, marginalised and vulnerable people with mental disorders. The available laws should address not only curative but also preventive, promotive and rehabilitative aspects. Legislation is needed to prevent discrimination against persons with mental disorders. Discrimination takes many forms, affects several fundamental areas of life and is pervasive. Discrimination and stigma may impact access to adequate treatment and care as well other areas of life, including employment, education, marriage and shelter. The inability to integrate into society as a consequence of these limitations can increase isolation experienced by individuals, which can in turn aggravate mental disorder. The presence of mental health legislation, however, does not in itself guarantee respect and protection of human rights until there is commitment from political and social structures as also the people concerned in implementation. Role of Judiciary in protecting human rights of mentally ill persons Since mental health takes a back seat and is largely ignored, public litigation and media exposure plays a role in highlighting gross violations of human rights. Judiciary therefore, plays a specific role in addressing some of the critical mental health care needs of the country. Supreme Court and State High Court decisions have tried to address the issues pertaining to denial of rights to mentally ill people. The courts in India have held in a number of cases that mental health is an integral and inseparable part of health and have repeatedly extended that there lies a positive duty on the part of the Government to promote health and right to live with human dignity which are fundamental rights enshrined in Article 21 of the constitution of India. The guiding principles enunciated by the Apex Court in some of these judgements are referred as under:In Hussainara Khatoon (No.1) vs. Home Secretary, Bihar, it was held by the Apex Court that “right to a speedy trial, a fundamental right, is implicit in the guarantee of life and personal liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution”. Speedy trial is the essence of criminal justice. These principles were reiterated in Abdul Rehman Antuley vs. R.S. Nayak in which detailed guidelines for speedy trial of an accused were laid down even though no time limit was fixed for trial of offences. ● In a public interest litigation (PIL), involving Veena Sethi vs State of Bihar case in 1982, the court was informed through a letter that some prisoners, who had been insane at the time of trial but had subsequently been declared sane had not been released due to inaction of the state authorities, and had remained in jail for 20 to 30 years. The court directed them to be ● 12 National Human Rights Commission