Kerala High Court Suggests Renaming Mental Health Centres to Combat Stigma
The Kerala High Court has directed the State government to consider renaming 'Mental Health Centres' across Kerala, observing that the current nomenclature carries a significant social stigma. A Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Basant Balaji made the observation while hearing a matter related to mental healthcare facilities in the State.
The court noted that hospitals dedicated to other medical conditions are not named 'Centres of Physical Health' or similar terms. There is no justification, it said, for mental health facilities to be singled out with a label that implies they serve only a particular kind of disorder. The Bench stressed that such naming practices inadvertently attach disrepute to these institutions and the patients they serve.
During the proceedings, the amicus curiae suggested that these centres be renamed as 'Institutes of Behavioural Management'. The court, however, clarified that renaming is a matter of policy and the ultimate decision lies completely with the State government. The Bench only directed the competent authorities to consider the proposal and take appropriate action.
The court observed that vulnerable sections of patients should be protected from the negative effects associated with the current name. It emphasised that these centres should be viewed as contributors to community welfare and development, rather than as facilities for a particular kind of illness. The stigma attached to mental health, the court indicated, often discourages individuals from seeking timely help.
Mental health experts have long argued that language plays a critical role in shaping public perception. Terms that isolate or label individuals can deepen discrimination, while more neutral or inclusive names may help normalise mental healthcare. The court's observation aligns with broader efforts to integrate mental health services into general healthcare and reduce societal prejudice.
The State government is now expected to examine the suggestion and take a decision. While the court did not mandate any specific name, its direction to reconsider the existing terminology reflects a growing judicial sensitivity towards the dignity of patients and the importance of destigmatising mental illness. Mental health advocates have welcomed the move, noting that such measures can encourage more people to access support without fear of judgement.
The case highlights a recurring issue in India, where mental health facilities often contend with overcrowding, inadequate resources, and social neglect. Renaming alone cannot solve these problems, but it can be a symbolic step towards changing attitudes. The court's intervention serves as a reminder that the language used by institutions must respect the humanity of those they serve and promote an environment of acceptance and care.
