INTRODUCTION
The mental health of an individual plays an important role in determining the criminal liability of a person. The law aims to balance the principles of accountability and compassion for individuals with mental disorders. Under Indian law, nothing is an offense which is done by a person, who at the time of doing it, by reason of mental illness, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. This is provided under Section 22 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The content of this provision is same that of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code.
CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
Criminal Responsibility is the legal principle that individuals are liable for their actions if they possess the mental capacity to;
- Understand the nature of their actions
- Distinguish between right and wrong and know what they are doing as wrong or contrary to law.
- Exercise control over their conduct.
Merely doing an act(actus reus) prohibited by law will not make it criminal unless it is accompanied by a guilty mind (mens rea). Both actus reus and mens rea have to be present for the person to be liable under criminal law. This is derived from the Latin maxim “Actus non facit reum nisi mems sit rea”, which basically means that the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty.
ROLE OF MENTAL HEALTH IN CRIMINAL LAW
Mental Health disorders can impair cognition, judgment, or impulse control, leading to:
- Reduced Responsibility – Diminished capacity to understand or control actions.
- Complete Lack of Responsibility– Insanity defense when severe mental illness renders the individual incapable of understanding their actions.
INSANITY DEFENSE : LEGAL STANDARDS
- M’Naghten Rule (1843)
This rule was established in England. It focusses on whether the defendant, at the time of the act, was suffering from a defect of reason caused by a mental disease, rendering them unable to know the nature of the act or that it was wrong. This rule has been widely adopted across the world, including in India (Sec 84 of IPC/Sec 22 of BNS).
- Irresistible Impulse Test
This rule evaluates whether the defendant was unable to control their actions despite understanding the fact that they were wrong.
- Durham Rule (1954)
This rule is a US innovation stating that a criminal act is excusable if caused by mental illness. This rule was later replaced as it had an extremely broad scope.
- Model Penal Code (1962)
It combines M’Naghten and irresistible impulse tests, focusing on substantial incapacity to appreciate criminality or conform behavior to the law.
INDIAN PERSPECTIVE
Under Section 22 of the BNS, a person is not criminally responsible if, at the time of the act, they were incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that it was wrong due to the unsoundness of mind. This was previously provided under Section 84 of the IPC.
CHALLENGES
- The focus is put more on the cognitive incapacity of the individual, neglecting emotional and volitional aspects.
- Burden of proof lies on the accused, requiring strong medical evidence from his side, which might be difficult to prove in the court of law.
NOTABLE CASES
R V. McNaughton (1843)
In this particular, the court established the M’Naghten Rules while acquitting McNaughton of murder due to insanity. The defendant had murdered the secretary to the Prime Minister of UK and it was contended that the defendant was suffering from delusions and acute insanity. He was acquitted as he did not know about the nature of his act and was suffering from defect of reason at the time of committing the act.
Durham v. United States(1954)
The Durham Test rule was laid down in this case. Under this test, the defendant is entitled to claim the insanity defense if their illegal conduct is the outcome of a mental disease or illness. However, unlike the M’Naghten test, it is not required for the defendant to know that their actions were wrong at the time of the commission of the act. This rule was later replaced due to its broad scope.
Rattan Lal vs State of Madhya Pradesh(1970)
In this particular case, the accused had set ire to the grass in an open land of the victim. The accused was examined by a psychiatrist and it was found that the accused was a “lunatic” within the ambit of the Indian Lunacy Act 1912. The report of psychiatrist claimed that the accused remains depressed, doesn’t speak to anyone and requires therapy. The trial curt accepted these findings and acquitted the accused. But the decision of the trial court was reversed by the High Court. The Supreme Court reinstated the decision of the trial court on the basis of the medical report and the behavior of the accused on the day of the commission of the act.
CHALLENGES IN BALANCING MENTAL HEALTH WITH CRIMINAL LAW
- Stigma and Misunderstanding – Societal and judicial biases may lead to unfair treatment of mentally ill offenders.
- Lack of Medical Expertise – Courts often struggle with interpreting psychiatric evaluations.
- Insufficient Rehabilitation – Prisons lack adequate mental health resources, leading to neglect and recidivism.
- Risk of abuse– Insanity defenses can be misused, undermining public confidence in the judicial system.
CONCLUSION
Mental Health and criminal responsibility require a nuanced approach that respects human rights while maintaining justice. By evolving legal standards and promoting mental health awareness, the justice system can better balance accountability and empathy for individuals with mental disorders.
Contributed By : Kritavirya Choudhary (Intern)