After a court-appointed Medical Board found no gross psychopathology in him, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that a private de-addiction centre cannot detain an adult on a spouse’s consent form alone, and ordered the release of a man kept at a rehabilitation facility.
Indore: Ordering the immediate release of a man held at a private rehabilitation facility, the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore has declared his confinement illegal in a habeas corpus petition, ruling that a spouse’s consent form gives a de-addiction centre no authority to detain an adult [Rajesh Patidar v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others].
The writ petition was filed by Rajesh Patidar for the release of his younger brother, Babulal. It was allowed by a Division Bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar and Justice Jai Kumar Pillai, in an order authored by Justice Pillai and passed on October 7, 2026.
Release forthwith
The detention at the premises of the private centre was declared illegal. The police authorities and the centre were directed to release Babulal forthwith, and he is free to live at a place of his own choice or with his brother, as per his own free will. The Court left a narrow window open for the wife: she may apply for admission to a Nasha Mukti Kendra only if backed by future independent Medical Board opinions indicating emergent necessity.
The consent of the adult, not of the spouse
On consent, the Court held:
“A private rehabilitation center has no statutory authority to act as a detention facility merely based on a spouse’s consent form. The admission of an adult to a de-addiction center must either stem from his own voluntary free will or be backed by a competent legal or medical mandate, both of which are glaringly absent in the present case.”
The Bench called the respondents’ claim that the man enjoyed free will at the centre “factually contradictory”. The record showed that the petitioner had personally approached the centre’s authorised representative on September 8, 2026 and asked for his brother’s release. If the man were truly a voluntary patient, the Court reasoned, the centre would have had no authority to deny him an exit.
What the Medical Board found
The Bench began from the settled premise that a habeas corpus petition asks whether a restriction on an individual’s liberty is backed by lawful authority. To test the defence that the man was an addict admitted for his own welfare, it relied on a Medical Board it had constituted by order dated September 28, 2026.
The Board’s report of October 1, 2026 recorded that he had “no gross psychopathology on Mental State Examination”, though he had left-side residual hemiparesis for which a neurologist’s opinion was advised. The Court said this opinion “completely dismantles the narrative heavily relied upon by Respondent No.5” and added that there was “absolutely nothing on record demonstrating that the Corpus suffers from any psychopathology or addiction warranting his forced institutionalization.”
The brother’s petition and the wife’s answer
According to the petition, Babulal and his wife are legally married but had been living separately in Indore district amid severe matrimonial disputes. He had earlier lodged police complaints, NCR Nos. 32/2025 and 165/2025, alleging assault and harassment by his wife and her family. The petition says that on September 7, 2026 the wife called him to her residence and took him to the premises of the private centre, where he has been kept against his will ever since. His brother visited the next day and was refused his release, and a written complaint to the local police produced no effective action. Babulal suffers from left-side paralysis.
The petitioner argued that his brother is neither a habitual drug addict nor a person needing forced treatment, that the wife had colluded with the centre with a mala fide intention to take over his property, and that a facility without proper medical infrastructure posed a threat to a paralysed patient who needs regular neurological care. The wife, who was respondent No. 5, denied this.
She contended that he is a habitual drug addict who frequently harmed her when intoxicated, that she admitted him merely to save her own life and her marriage, and that he exercises free will at the centre. These are the contentions of the parties, and the Court did not accept the allegations against the man.
Article 21 and habeas corpus
The Court held that the continued confinement violated the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, observing that “an adult citizen of sound mind possesses absolute autonomy over his person and medical treatment”. Habeas corpus under Article 226 is the remedy when such a restraint is imposed without lawful authority, and the respondents, it said, had “completely failed to demonstrate any statutory or medical justification for retaining his custody against his wishes.”
What the order draws a line around
A signed form from a family member is not a legal mandate to hold an adult in custody. Where a person’s admission is contested, the court can order an independent medical assessment and will treat the result, not the family’s account, as the starting point.
The door stays open for treatment where it is truly needed, since the wife may seek admission to a Nasha Mukti Kendra on the strength of fresh independent medical opinion. The ruling decides the liberty question on the record before the Court and makes no finding on the parties’ matrimonial dispute.
Case Title: Rajesh Patidar v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 39187 of 2026
Bench: Justice Subodh Abhyankar and Justice Jai Kumar Pillai, Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore
Date of Order: October 7, 2026
Appearances: Mr. Monesh Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioner; Mr. Amit Bhatia, Government Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 3 (State); Mr. Shubham Mandil, Advocate, for respondent No. 5 (wife)