Indian Journal of PsychiatryIndian Journal of Psychiatry
Home | About us | Current Issue | Archives | Ahead of Print | Submission | Instructions | Subscribe | Advertise | Contact | Login 
    Users online: 12759 Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size Print this article Email this article Bookmark this page
Search Again
 Table of Contents
 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Article Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert
 Add to My List
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded365    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

Year : 2016  |  Volume : 58  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 171-177

A review of reception order in the management of mentally ill persons in a psychiatric institute

1 Institute of Mental Health, Madras Medical College, Kilpauk, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
2 Department of Psychiatry, SRM Medical College Hospital and Research Centre, Potheri, Kattankulathur, Kancheepuram, Tamil Nadu, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Nakkeerar Subramanian
89/38, Priyadharshini Apartments, 89 Baraka Road, Nammalwarpet, Chennai - 600 012, Tamil Nadu
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/0019-5545.183787

Rights and Permissions

Background: Mentally ill prisoners, when requiring admission in a psychiatric facility, have to be admitted only by a reception order of a judicial magistrate and convicts by warrants issued by the Government to jail superintendents and the superintendent of the hospital. Both can be only under Section 27 of The Mental Health Act, 1987. Materials and Methods: A study of the contents of reception order and warrants regarding the acts and section under which they were issued over 1 year period for the admission of the patients in the criminal ward of the Institute of Mental Health was carried out. Results: Only three reception orders quoted Section 27 out of 54 patients admitted under a reception order. Nineteen patients were admitted by the jail superintendents. Discussion: Various issues that were found in the reception order and their consequences are discussed, and a possible response to these issues is mooted. Conclusion: Almost none of the reception orders were found to be proper. This deficit needs to be rectified by sensitizing the various authorities.



Print this article         Email this article