Reconceptualising Criminal Responsibility: The Evolution Of The Insanity Defence From Moral Philosophy To Constitutional Jurisprudence In India
- IJLLR Journal
- 1 hour ago
- 2 min read
Ayush Tiwari, B.A. LL.B., School of Law, Bahra University, Solan
ABSTRACT
The concept of mental integrity has progressively evolved beyond its traditional medical dimensions to emerge as a significant constitutional and human rights concern, intrinsically linked to the principles of dignity, autonomy, and personal liberty. This article examines the development of mental health jurisprudence and the insanity defence within criminal law, with particular emphasis on the Indian legal framework, situating the discourse at the intersection of psychiatry, criminal justice, and constitutional law. The study explores the moral and philosophical foundations of criminal responsibility, premised on the notion that the legitimacy of punishment depends upon an individual's capacity for rational understanding and volitional control. Where an accused lacks the cognitive ability to comprehend the nature, consequences, or wrongfulness of an act, the imposition of criminal liability fails to fulfil the normative objectives of punishment. In this context, the insanity defence functions as a principled exception to the requirement of concurrence between actus reus and mens rea.
Adopting a historical and doctrinal approach, the paper contrasts the moral absolutism reflected in ancient Indian conceptions of Dharma with the gradual recognition of mental incapacity as a ground for exculpation within Western legal traditions. These developments ultimately culminated in the formulation of the M’Naghten Rules, which established a predominantly cognitive test of legal insanity and continue to shape Indian criminal jurisprudence through Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The article further analyses the constitutional evolution of mental health under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, highlighting judicial recognition of mental well-being, autonomy, and human dignity as essential components of the right to life and personal liberty. It argues that contemporary constitutional values necessitate a more humane, rights-oriented, and scientifically informed approach to criminal responsibility and the treatment of persons with mental disorders within the criminal justice system.
Keywords: Mental Integrity, Insanity Defence, Criminal Responsibility, Unsoundness of Mind, Mental Health, Article 21, Constitutional Jurisprudence, Human Dignity.
