Published on 31st March 2025
Authored By: Aqsa Nadeem
Institute of Engineering and Management
Abstract
In determining criminal liability of defendants, the criminal justice system relies on insanity. In India, legal framework establishes the criminal liability of accused persons suffering from mental illness by committing the tests to determine his or her participation in a punishment. The research assesses assessment tests in Indian criminal law and judicial tendencies and its risk to the law governing insanity defence. Indian examples of courts are then analyzed to see how the Indian judicial system balances justice demands with their mental health needs. The paper assesses the role of the judiciary in constituting application of the insanity defence in framing procedures and in defining its future forms of scrutiny.
Introduction
A central legal doctrine of criminal law is what decides if mentally ill persons are accountable for their criminal conduct. There is great difficulty for courts in handling the justice system versus understanding mental health issues on the legal intersection between criminal law and mental health.
Criminal liability requires proof of three interrelated components as follows:
- Commission of the prohibited conduct specified in the offense (Actus Reus)
- Committed with a particular mental state (Mens Rea).
- Committed without a legal defence.
Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 84 that an act is not an offense if the person committing it was unable to understand the nature of their actions due to unsoundness of mind. This is also known as the insanity defence. The insanity defence is one of the tremendous challenges that judges face in their reckoning of obsession and criminal liability in their estimation of mental disability and disease. It traces the developmental application of the doctrine within India as well as the criteria and directions given regarding the defence of insanity under the law of legalization.
Laws in India
For Indian law, there is a precise insanity defence requirement laid out section 22 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023- Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.
The section establishes the following: It is not criminal liability for someone when he acts during an episode of mental incapacity that deprives him of knowing the nature of the act and/or its wrongful nature. The defence had to prove that the accused suffers from a mental disorder, that led to a lack of understanding about the characteristics of an act or ignorance in understanding whether or not their behaviour is wrong. This provision does provide the legal basis for the insanity defence, but courts must interpret its application as it is too complicated within its context Section 22 of the BNS, 2023 provides a basic exclusion from criminal liability to those who, at the time of the commission of an offence, were suffering from a mental illness, which rendered them incapable of appreciating its nature or of differentiating between right and wrong. It retains the insanity defence from the erstwhile Section 84 of the IPC but in replacing the term ‘unsoundness of mind’ with ‘mental illness’ renders it more in tune with modern psychiatric and legal thinking.
Legal Tests
In India, the insanity defence is based on the rule that the concept of ‘unsoundness of mind’ works similarly to the M’Naghten Rule which was first set in England in 1843. It appears to be only a matter of minor difference in the legal test when applied to India.
- M’Naghten Rule: Insanity defence: a defendant can use the insanity defence only if court evidence shows that he or she had a serious mental disorder during the crime. Proof of two things is what the defence needs: they had to understand the nature of their actions or they knew their actions were wrong, and they could not control their actions. They were incapable of grasping all of the actions that took place between the two, of understanding the wrongness of them. Not inside their heads, they knew the wrongness of their behaviour yet they could not control their actions.
- Irresistible Impulse Test: The symbolic test of irresistible impulse, although excluded from national guidelines, is secondarily resorted to as an indicator under the M’Naghten Rule in Indian legal systems. The test applies to the individual who, because of their mental disorder, has such a lack of mental control over their misconduct that they know but do not comprehend the immorality of their conduct. According to this examination, courts measure whether mental illness prevented a person from keeping control over his behaviour.
- Durham Rule: The Durham Rule existed in the United States, which had faded out to a considerable extent in India. This legal principle provides that when a person’s illegal act arises from mental disorder that person will be exempted from criminal responsibility. Indian courts.
- The Model Penal Code Test: Indian law does not recognize this approach as official legal standards but the Model Penal Code test from U.S. legal practice such as understanding of the action and behaviour compliance is accepted by the judges to evaluate. The specific cases are complex and this test will be probable for the decision-making process of the Indian courts. For cases under section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, Indian courts require expert psychiatric evaluation, medical expert testimony as well as the availability of medical experts in the Indian courts in assessing the condition of insanity of defendants, who also claim insanity as a defence.
- McNaughton rule: Section 84 of IPC embodies this rule stating that “Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to the law.”
Judicial Trends (Case Studies)
Over time, Indian courts have undertaken numerous judicial determinations for the advancement of their own understanding of the insanity defence. The following have shaped modern Indian court interpretations of the insanity defence: multiple legal cases.
Hari Singh Gond v. State Of Madhya Pradesh (2008 INSC 998)[1] is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of India that delves deeply into the application of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertains to the defence of insanity. This case revolves around the conviction of Hari Singh Gond for murder and attempted murder, challenging the applicability of the insanity defence under the IPC. The appellant contested his conviction on the grounds of unsoundness of mind, prompting a comprehensive judicial examination of the legal parameters surrounding mental incapacity and criminal responsibility. The Court meticulously analyzed the evidence, including eyewitness testimonies and the appellant’s behavioural patterns, ultimately determining that the appellant did not meet the stringent criteria required to establish legal insanity.
Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand[2] was adjudicated by the Supreme Court of India on January 6, 2011. The appellant, Surendra Mishra, was convicted for the heinous crime of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and was also charged under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The central issue revolved around whether Mishra was of unsound mind at the time of committing the offence, which would invoke the general exception under Section 84 of the IPC, potentially leading to his acquittal. The trial court found Surendra Mishra guilty of murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment under Section 302 of the IPC, dismissing the plea based on alleged unsoundness of mind as per Section 84 IPC. This decision was upheld by the High Court. Upon reaching the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that he was of unsound mind during the incident, referencing precedent cases to support his claim. However, the Supreme Court meticulously analyzed the evidence, the appellant’s conduct before and after the crime, and the legal standards governing “unsoundness of mind,” ultimately affirming the conviction and sentence.
Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab (1956) [3]The insanity defence put forward by the defendant during this case proceedings was examined by the court in the Punjab High Court. This trial was about whether or not the defendant could have comprehended the actions he performed. The accused was found to be mentally unstable and the court rejected the evidence to prove the existence of complete insanity. By showing how insubstantial it was to establish insanity beyond reasonable doubt in criminal trials, the court set down tight criteria of evaluating insanity pleas.
Conclusion
With the introduction of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, replacing the Indian Penal Code (IPC) of 1860, it’s worth asking—does this shift bring any real change to the insanity defence? Section 23 of the BNS takes over from Section 84 of the IPC, but the core principles remain the same: the burden of proof still falls on the accused, and the legal test continues to follow the M’Naghten Rule, which has been around for nearly two centuries.
Moving forward, India has an opportunity to make this defence more just and humane. Mental health science has advanced significantly, and the law must keep pace. Courts should work more closely with forensic psychiatrists to ensure fair assessments. The burden of proof also needs a rethink—should a person struggling with severe mental illness really have to prove their condition in a way that’s often difficult and inaccessible? Standardized legal guidelines and clearer criteria for assessing insanity claims under the BNS could bring much-needed consistency to court decisions.
As we transition to this new legal framework, it’s time to modernize the insanity defence. The goal should not just be legal correctness but fairness and compassion—ensuring that those genuinely suffering from mental health conditions receive the understanding and treatment they need while maintaining a system that upholds justice.
References
[1] Hari Singh Gond v State of Madhya Pradesh (2008) 16 SCC 109.
[2] Surendra Mishra v State of Jharkhand (2011) 11 SC
[3] Pritam Singh v State of Punjab (1956) AIR 1956 SC 415.
