Defence of Insanity: Legal Principles & Controversies

Sir James Stephan in his Digest of Criminal law states: " No act is a crime if the person who does
it, is at the same time when it is done prevented either by defective mental power or by any
disease affecting his mind (a) from knowing the nature and quality of the act, or (b) from
knowing that the act is wrong."

In the realm of law,the concept of insanity challenges us to redefine the boundaries of culpability
and compassion. The insanity defence is a legal concept that allows the individual accused of a
crime to argue that they should not be held criminally liable for their actions due to their
incompetent mental state at the time of the offence. This article provides a comprehensive
analysis of insanity as a defence, including its historical development, legal standards,
controversies, and practical implications in the criminal justice system.

History

The defence of insanity has a long-standing history in legal systems around the globe. Its origins
can be traced back to ancient times when societies recognized that individuals with mental
illnesses or disorders may not possess the necessary mental capacity to be held fully responsible
for their actions.

Under English common law, the case of M'Naghten established the principles of insanity for the
first time. In the Year 1843, Daniel M'Naghten, who was charged with the murder of a
government official, argued that he was insane at the time of the offence and was incapable of
understanding the nature of the offence. According to the rules established in the M'Naghten
case, a person is not criminally liable if, at the time of the offence, they suffered from a defect of
reason caused by a disease of the mind, which rendered them unable to understand the nature and
quality of the act they were doing or to know that it was wrong.

The landmark case of M'Naghten 1843 established the modern test for insanity under English
common law, which influenced the Indian legal system during the British colonial period and
provisions for the same was incorporated in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) which was enacted in
1860, including the M'Naghten Rules.

Over the years, Indian courts have interpreted and applied the defence of insanity based on
statutory provisions and legal precedents. The current provision related to the defence of insanity
in India is under Section 84 of the IPC: Act of a person of unsound mind.—Nothing is an offence
which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, because 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.
Legal Standards:

As mentioned earlier, in India, the defence of insanity is primarily governed by Section 84 IPC
and to attract its application, the burden of proof lies on the individual who takes its defence by
invoking this particular section. The individual has the burden to prove the following conditions:
(A) the act was done by a person of unsound mind,(B) Such person was incapable of knowing
the nature of the act that the act was contrary to law, or that the act was wrong,(C) such
incapacity must be by the reason of the unsoundness of mind of the offender,(D) the incapacity
of the nature stated in the above point ,(E) must exist at the time of the act constituting the
offence.

There are four kinds of persons who can be said to have an unsound mind (a) a person who has
non-sane memory from his birth by a perpetual infirmity, without lucid intervals(Idiot), (b) a
person who is afflicted by mental disorder only at certain periods, having intervals of reason but
the madness is permanent (Lunatic), (c) one made non-compos by illness, (d) insanity brought by
drunkenness (delirium tremens).

The defence of insanity is not an acquittal but rather a legal exemption from criminal liability. If
the defence is successful and the accused is found not guilty because of insanity, they may be
subject to mandatory psychiatric treatment or institutionalization for an appropriate period, as
determined by the court.

Legal Insanity & Medical Insanity

For attracting the defence of section 84 IPC the person must prove that he was suffering from
legal insanity during the commission of the offence and not medical insanity. To establish legal
insanity the defendant must prove that he had a mental illness or defect that impaired their ability
to understand the nature and consequences of their actions or to distinguish right from wrong
during the commission of the act.

Medical insanity, on the other hand, is a broader medical or psychiatric term that refers to a
severe mental illness or disorder that significantly impairs a person's cognitive or emotional
functioning. It is a clinical diagnosis made by medical professionals based on established
diagnostic criteria.

While legal insanity and medical insanity share some similarities, they are distinct concepts with
different purposes and criteria. Legal insanity focuses on the defendant's mental state at the time
of the offence and whether they meet the legal criteria for lack of criminal responsibility.
Medical insanity, on the other hand, focuses on diagnosing and treating mental illnesses and
disorders based on medical and psychiatric standards.

Constitutional Aspect about Section 84 IPC

Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees the protection of life and personal liberty. This
includes the right to a fair trial and the right to mental healthcare, which encompasses the right to
present a defence. The defence of insanity allows individuals to present evidence of their mental
state and prove that they lack the necessary mental capacity to be held fully responsible for their
conduct and it acknowledges that individuals with mental illnesses require appropriate care and
treatment rather than strict punishment, aligning with the constitutional recognition of the right to
mental health. Article 14 guarantees the right to equality before the law, ensuring that individuals
are treated equally under similar circumstances. The defence of insanity ensures that individuals
with mental illnesses are not treated more harshly than those without such conditions, thus
upholding the principle of equality.

Controversies Surrounding the Insanity Defence

High-profile cases, where defendants successfully invoked the insanity defence, have fuelled
public debate about its fairness and effectiveness. The insanity defence has attracted significant
controversy due to concerns about its potential misuse or exploitation by defendants. The
individual may try to manipulate or feign mental illness to exploit the defence of insanity, this
could be done to avoid legal liability or to gain more favorable treatment within the legal system.
Detecting and proving malingering can be challenging, especially when dealing with complex
mental health conditions. Critics argue that it may be used as a loophole to escape criminal
liability which will in turn potentially jeopardize public safety.