Mental Health of the Accused: Intersection of Criminal Law and Psychiatry
Introduction
The mental health of an accused person plays a critical role in determining criminal responsibility, competency to stand trial, and appropriate sentencing. The intersection of criminal law and psychiatry is a complex, evolving area of jurisprudence that balances individual rights, public safety, and principles of justice. While criminal law primarily concerns itself with the intent and actions of an accused, psychiatry offers insights into the mental state, capacity, and psychological wellbeing that could negate or diminish criminal liability.
In India, this intersection is governed by statutory provisions like Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, and procedural safeguards under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (replacing the CrPC). Yet, challenges such as the lack of forensic psychiatric infrastructure, societal stigma, and procedural ambiguity continue to hinder effective implementation. This article offers a comprehensive analysis of the legal-psychiatric interface, current practices, and the urgent need for reform.
Understanding the Legal Framework
1.
Section 84 IPC – Legal Insanity
Section 84 IPC lays down the legal test for insanity:
“Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, was incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law.”
This provision is rooted in the McNaghten Rules, developed in 19th-century England, and focuses on the cognitive capacity of the accused at the time of the offence. Importantly, it does not cover all mental illnesses but only those that impair the individual’s understanding of their act.
2.
Procedural Provisions: BNSS and Earlier CrPC
Under the BNSS (Section 367 onwards), the procedural rights of an accused with mental illness are preserved, including:
- Assessment of the mental condition by qualified medical officers.
- Postponement of trial if the accused is incapable of defense.
- Transfer to mental health institutions for treatment.
- Re-evaluation before recommencement of trial.
This framework seeks to prevent miscarriages of justice by ensuring that those who are unfit to stand trial are treated before proceedings continue.
3.
Mental Healthcare Act, 2017
This progressive legislation emphasizes rights-based approaches to mental health, stating that:
- Persons with mental illness have the right to live with dignity.
- No individual shall be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment.
- Treatment shall be provided with informed consent.
Though the Act does not focus on criminal law specifically, it influences the treatment and institutional care of mentally ill accused persons.
Psychiatric Evaluation and Criminal Responsibility
1.
Distinction Between Medical and Legal Insanity
- Medical insanity refers broadly to any diagnosed mental disorder.
- Legal insanity is a narrower concept, requiring proof that the mental disorder rendered the accused incapable of understanding the nature or wrongfulness of the act.
This distinction often leads to acquittal being denied even if the person suffers from a serious psychiatric condition unless the strict criteria of legal insanity are met.
2.
Competency to Stand Trial
The concept of fitness to plead evaluates whether the accused:
- Understands the nature and object of the proceedings.
- Can consult with a lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding.
- Can follow the evidence and comprehend the possible outcomes.
Courts may order psychiatric evaluation before or during the trial to determine competency.
Insanity Defence: Judicial Interpretation
Indian courts have laid down key precedents in interpreting Section 84 IPC:
- Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat (1964): The Supreme Court held that burden of proof lies on the accused to establish legal insanity but only on a balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt.
- Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand (2011): Reinforced that past history of mental illness does not automatically entitle the accused to immunity under Section 84 unless it affected cognition at the time of the offence.
- Ratan Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1971): Evidence such as irrational behavior, expert testimony, and hospital records are crucial to proving insanity.
Courts maintain a cautious approach, ensuring that the defence is not misused while safeguarding genuine cases.
Challenges in Practice
1.
Stigma and Social Neglect
Mental illness continues to be stigmatized in India, leading to underreporting, delay in diagnosis, and poor rehabilitation. This extends to the courtroom where sympathy is often outweighed by suspicion.
2.
Lack of Forensic Psychiatric Facilities
India lacks adequate forensic psychiatric institutions. Many prisons are ill-equipped to handle mentally ill inmates, and coordination between courts and mental health professionals is often inadequate.
3.
Detention in Mental Hospitals
Even when acquitted on grounds of insanity, many accused remain institutionalized for years without periodic reviews, raising human rights concerns. Section 103 of the Mental Healthcare Act provides for periodic assessment, but implementation is weak.
Comparative Perspective
United States
In the U.S., the insanity defence varies by state and includes models like the Durham Rule (mental illness caused the act), ALI Model Penal Code Test (lacked substantial capacity to appreciate criminality), and Irresistible Impulse Test. States also consider Guilty but Mentally Ill (GBMI) verdicts allowing incarceration with treatment.
United Kingdom
The UK follows the McNaghten Rules but has evolved mechanisms like hospital orders, supervised treatment orders, and regular psychiatric oversight. The focus is on both mental health and public safety.
Reform and Recommendations
- Strengthening Forensic Psychiatry
- Establish dedicated forensic psychiatric units in every state.
- Train judges, police, and prison staff in mental health awareness.
- Periodic Review of Institutionalized Accused
- Mandatory judicial reviews every 6 months for those detained post-acquittal.
- Promote community-based mental health care as an alternative to prolonged institutionalization.
- Clearer Procedural Guidelines
- Draft specific BNSS rules for fitness assessments, expert examination timelines, and confidentiality safeguards.
- Legal Aid and Representation
- Ensure availability of trained legal aid lawyers familiar with psychiatric defences.
- Integration with Mental Healthcare Act
- Develop synergy between the judiciary and mental health review boards for better oversight.
Conclusion
The intersection of criminal law and psychiatry highlights the delicate balance between justice, public safety, and human dignity. While Indian law does recognize mental illness as a valid defence, practical and systemic hurdles remain. A humane, evidence-based approach — supported by legal reform, psychiatric infrastructure, and rights-oriented practices — is essential to ensure that mental health is neither a tool for impunity nor a ground for neglect. The law must treat mental illness not as an escape from accountability but as a call for a more compassionate, fair, and just criminal justice system.
