Criminal Responsibility And Mental Illness In India: Reassessing The Insanity Defence In Light Of Forensic Psychiatry And The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017
- IJLLR Journal
- May 15
- 2 min read
Ayush Tiwari, B.A. LL.B., School of Law, Bahra University, Solan
Rashi Sood, Assistant Professor, School of Law, Bahra University, Solan
ABSTRACT
The relationship between mental illness and criminal responsibility remains one of the most conceptually complex and practically contested issues in Indian criminal jurisprudence. In India, the insanity defence continues to be governed by Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, a provision rooted in the nineteenth-century McNaughten Rules, which assess criminal incapacity primarily through a narrow cognitive standard. Although this doctrinal framework has long served as the legal basis for exculpating mentally disordered offenders, it has become increasingly inadequate in light of contemporary advances in psychiatry, psychology, neuroscience and behavioural science. These developments have substantially broadened the understanding of mental disorders and their impact not only on cognition, but also on volition, perception, impulse control and decision-making, thereby exposing the limitations of a purely knowledge-based legal test.
The resulting divergence between legal doctrine and medical science raises significant doctrinal, evidentiary and institutional concerns. Courts are often called upon to evaluate complex psychiatric conditions in the absence of a sufficiently robust and integrated forensic mental health framework, leading to inconsistency in judicial reasoning and, at times, the inadequate recognition of genuine mental illness in the adjudication of criminal liability. This doctrinal rigidity not only undermines the equitable assessment of culpability but also raises broader concerns regarding due process, fairness and substantive justice within the criminal justice system.
Against this backdrop, the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 represents a transformative shift in India’s mental health jurisprudence by replacing earlier custodial and welfare-oriented approaches with a rights-based legal framework founded upon dignity, autonomy, informed consent, equality, non-discrimination and access to appropriate care. Although the Act does not directly amend or redefine the scope of the insanity defence under criminal law, its normative principles carry profound implications for the treatment of accused persons with mental illness, the conduct of forensic psychiatric assessments, determinations of fitness to stand trial, and the broader protection of procedural and human rights within criminal proceedings. This paper critically examines the continuing relevance and limitations of the insanity defence in India in light of contemporary psychiatric knowledge and evolving human rights norms. It interrogates the disconnect between legal and medical understandings of mental incapacity and evaluates the extent to which the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 has the potential to reshape judicial approaches to criminal responsibility. Drawing upon comparative legal models and interdisciplinary scholarship, the paper argues for a more nuanced, scientifically informed and rights-sensitive framework that aligns Indian criminal law with constitutional values, forensic realities and international standards of mental health justice.
