Informed by the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the Indian government replaced the 1987 Mental Health Act with the transformative “Indian Mental Healthcare Act, 2017” (IMHCA 2017), which gained presidential approval on April 7, 2017. While the new act aligns with CRPD guidelines, emphasizing the promotion, protection and realization of complete and equitable human rights, legal capacity, equality and dignity for persons with mental illness, it has faced diverse criticism from various stakeholders, particularly psychiatrists. This study systematically explores the critiques and apprehensions expressed by psychiatrists regarding the IMHCA 2017 using available published resources and assesses these criticisms within the context of CRPD guidelines.

We conducted a scoping review of the literature, using two search engines like PubMed and Scopus. The review covered academic publications, reports and documents from both national and international sources, authored by psychiatrists and psychiatric organizations, related to the IMHCA 2017. The primary search term “IMHCA 2017” was used without temporal restrictions. Publications authored by mental health professionals from India and around the world were included in the final analysis. Through qualitative analysis, key themes reflecting psychiatrists’ viewpoints were identified. These themes, marked by substantial criticism, were then assessed in accordance with the guiding principles of the CRPD, including its optional protocol and general comments.

The study analyzed 33 manuscripts discussing criticisms and concerns about IMHCA 2017. Manuscript types included opinion papers (60.6%), original research articles (21.21%), review articles (9.09%), editorials (6.06%) and comments (3.03%). All but one article were authored by psychiatrists, with five by non-Indian authors and the rest by Indian psychiatrists. Most articles were published in the Indian Journal of Psychiatry (75.76%), with some in other journals. About 54.55% critically scrutinized act provisions, while 45.45% highlighted positive aspects. The analysis identified seven prominent criticism themes: clinical apprehensions, lack of clarity and comprehensiveness, feasibility challenges, neglect of caregivers, mistrust toward psychiatrists, crises in general hospital psychiatry units and ideological reservations.

Each theme was critically assessed in the context of CRPD guidelines, and corresponding recommendations were formulated.