DR.
RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA
NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY
Indian Penal Code-I
The M’Naghten Test in Indian Law: A Study of its
Application and Criticisms.
SUBMITTED TO – SUBMITTED BY–
Dr. Malay Pandey Pratham Dhoka
Assistant Professor 210101048
(Law) B.A. LL.B. (Hons.)
Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University 4th Semester, Section A
DECLARATION
I hereby declare that the project report on the topic “The M’Naghten Test in Indian Law: A
Study of its Application and Criticisms.” submitted by me to Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya
National Law University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, in partial fulfillment required for the award
of the degree of B.A.LLB. (Hons.) is a record of bonafide project work carried out by me under
the guidance of Dr. Malay Pandey. I further declare that the work reported in this project has
not been submitted and will not be submitted in either part or full for the award of any other
degree or diploma in this institute or any other University.
- Pratham Dhoka
Enrolment No.-210101048
IV Sem, B.A.LLB. (Hons)
1|P a ge
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I express my gratitude and deep regards to my teacher, Dr. Malay Pandey, who gave
me this opportunity to do this project. I would also like to thank him for providing
exemplary guidance, monitoring, and constant encouragement throughout the course
of this project. Without his motivation, inspiration, and efforts, I would not have been
able to make this project.
I also take this opportunity to express a deep sense of gratitude to my parents and
mentors for providing me with the morals and support to complete this task through
various stages. I am also obliged to the Librarian of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya
National Law University for providing timely e-library access to me. I am grateful for
their cooperation during the period of my assignment.
Lastly, I would also like to thank my family, friends, and colleagues for their constant
encouragement, without which this project would not have been possible.
-Pratham Dhoka
2|P a ge
CONTENTS
DECLARATION .................................................................................................................. 1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ..................................................................................................... 2
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 4
Origin and evolution of the M’Naghten test in British law............................................... 4
Introduction and adoption of the M’Naghten Test in Indian law. .................................... 4
METHODOLOGY................................................................................................................ 5
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM.............................................................................................. 5
UNDERSTANDING THE M’NAGHTEN TEST IN INDIAN LAW .................................... 6
Elements of the M’Naghten Test: “disease of the mind” and “defect of reason” ............. 6
Interpretation and application of the M’Naghten Test in Indian courts .......................... 6
Difference between legal insanity and medical insanity ................................................. 7
CRITICISM OF THE M’NAGHTEN TEST ......................................................................... 8
In the United Kingdom .................................................................................................... 8
In India............................................................................................................................. 9
FUTURE REFORMS SUGGESTED .................................................................................... 9
Durham Rule ................................................................................................................... 9
Concept of Diminished Responsibility .......................................................................... 10
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 12
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................... 13
Statutes........................................................................................................................... 13
Books .............................................................................................................................. 13
Reports ........................................................................................................................... 13
Case Law ........................................................................................................................ 13
3|P a ge
INTRODUCTION
Origin and evolution of the M’Naghten test in British law
The M’Naghten Test is a legal test for criminal responsibility that originated in British law in
the mid-19th century. The test was developed in response to a high-profile case in which a man
named Daniel M’Naghten was charged with the murder of the British Prime Minister’s
secretary in 1843. 1
At the time, the law in England followed the traditional common law approach of holding
defendants criminally responsible for their actions if they had a general understanding of right
and wrong. However, the M’Naghten case raised questions about how to deal with defendants
who suffered from mental illness or incapacity.
M’Naghten had a delusional belief that the British Prime Minister was trying to harm him, and
he believed that killing the secretary was necessary for his own self-defense. Despite his clear
mental illness, the court found him guilty of murder and sentenced him to be hanged. This
sparked public outrage and led to calls for a new legal test to determine criminal responsibility
in cases involving mental illness.
As a result, the M’Naghten Test was developed and adopted in British law in 1843. The test
provides that a defendant is not criminally responsible if, at the time of committing the act, he
or she was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know
the nature and quality of the act he or she was doing, or if he or she did know it, that he or she
did not know what he or she was doing was wrong.
The M’Naghten Test has since been adopted in various forms by many countries, including
India. However, the test has been subject to criticism for being overly restrictive and failing to
take into account the complexity of mental illness. Some legal scholars have argued for a
broader approach to determining criminal responsibility that considers the individual
circumstances of each case rather than relying on a rigid legal test.
Introduction and adoption of the M’Naghten Test in Indian law.
The Indian Penal Code2 was enacted in 1860, and Section 84 was indeed included in it. Section
84 provides for the defense of insanity and states that a person cannot be held criminally
responsible for an act that was done while they were of unsound mind and were incapable of
1
R v. M’Naghten, (1843) 8 E.R. 718.
2
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
4|P a ge
understanding the nature of their actions. However, the section does not provide a detailed
definition of what constitutes “unsound mind” or “incapable of understanding.”
A comparative reading of the M’Naghten Rules; section 84 of the IPC and its corresponding
draft provisions (sections 66 and 67 of the Draft Indian Penal Code prepared by Lord Macaulay
in l843; which respectively read: “Nothing is an offence which is done by a person in a state
of idiocy” and “Nothing is an offence which a person does in consequence of being mad or
delirious at the time of doing it.”) reveals that the M’Naghten Rules influenced the law
governing insanity in India.
Under the M’Naghten Test, an individual can be found legally insane if they were suffering
from a disease of the mind at the time of committing the offense and, as a result, did not
understand the nature and quality of their act or did not know that what they were doing was
wrong.
The M’Naghten Test has been criticized for being too narrow in scope and failing to consider
certain mental disorders that can affect an individual's ability to understand the nature and
consequences of their actions. In recent years, there have been calls for reform of the insanity
defense in India, with some experts suggesting that a broader and more nuanced approach may
be necessary.
METHODOLOGY
The methodology which the researcher has adopted is doctrinal. The present research is purely
doctrinal as this research has beencarried out on the existing legal provisions, rules, legal
maxims and doctrines with the help of case study and by way of analyzing the principles laid
by the legislative as well the judicial authorities. Researcher has used the primary and
secondary sources as well as the statutes on the topic for deeper analysis of the legal
connotations. The research also involves brief review of interpretation and understanding of
the authoritative sources as well.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
The researcher, therefore, has attempted to examine and analyze the following aspects of the
M’Naghten Test:
A) Its origin in English law and adoption into Indian law.
5|P a ge
B) Differentiation between legal and medical insanity.
C) Its criticisms from the UK and India.
D) Required reforms to make the law just and equitable.
UNDERSTANDING THE M’NAGHTEN TEST IN
INDIAN LAW
Elements of the M’Naghten Test: “disease of the mind” and “defect of reason”
There appears no difference in the etymological meaning of the two terms- “insanity” and
“unsoundness of mind” as they mean a “defect of reason arising from a disease of the mind”.
The courts in India have treated the expression unsoundness of mind as equivalent to
“insanity”. A high court, obviously influenced by the M’Naghten rules, has ruled that an
accused to get the protection of section 84 is required to establish that he, at the time of
committing the offence, was “labouring under such a defect of reason from disease of the mind,
as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or if he did know it, that he did
not know he was doing what was wrong”.
The first element, “disease of the mind,” refers to a mental illness or disorder that impairs a
person's ability to reason or understand the nature of their actions. This element is intended to
ensure that only those with a genuine mental disorder are eligible for the insanity defense.
The second element, “defect of reason,” refers to a person's inability, due to their mental illness,
to understand the nature and consequences of their actions or to differentiate between right and
wrong. This element requires a person to demonstrate that their mental illness affected their
ability to reason in a way that led them to commit the crime.
Interpretation and application of the M’Naghten Test in Indian courts
The law in India on this subject is based upon the answers given by the fifteen Judges to the
questions pat to them by the House of Lords in the course of the discussion initiated by the
proceedings in the well-known case of McNaughten. It is arguable whether the law is
satisfactory on this point. An authority as great as Sir James Stephen was in favour of extending
amnesty to a lunatic in the case of offences which he might commit when deprived by
disease of the power of controlling his conduct.3
3
Muhammad Husain v. Emperor, 1913 Cri LJ 81.
6|P a ge
MP HC in a case said: “Consequently, in the practical application of the principle enunciated
in section 84 of the Penal Code, 1860, a more progressive attitude will have to be adopted for
determining criminal responsibility of a person suffering from ‘mental disorders’ in the light
of recent advances in the medical science especially in the branch of psychiatry.”4
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, 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.5
In order to seek protection of section 84, IPC, it is necessary for an accused to prove that he, at
the time of commission of the act, was of unsound mind and he, because of the “unsoundness
of mind” was incapable of knowing the “nature” of the act; or that the act was contrary to law;
or that the act was wrong”. The crucial point of time of such incapability due to unsoundness
of mind is the time when he committed the offence. His insanity prior or subsequent to the
commission of the offence is not in itself adequate to absolve him from the criminal liability. 6
The term “unsoundness of mind” is not defined in the IPC. Yet, the definition of the expression,
according to the Black’s Law Dictionary7, is; “A person of unsound mind is an adult who from
infirmity of mind is incapable of managing himself or his affairs. The term, therefore, includes
insane persons, idiots, and imbeciles.”
Unsoundness of mind has been likened by the Indian courts to mean insanity. Again, “insanity”
finds no particular definition in the penal code. However, according to the medical point of
view, it is probably correct to say that every person, when committing a criminal act, is insane
and therefore needs an exemption from criminal responsibility; while it is a legal point of view,
a person must be held to be the same as long as he is able to distinguish between right and
wrong; as long as he knows that the act carried out is contrary to the law.
Difference between legal insanity and medical insanity
Every person who is suffering from mental disease is not ipso facto exempted from criminal
liability. The mere fact that the accused was conceited, odd, irascible, and his brain is not quite
alright, or that the physical and mental ailments from which he suffered had rendered his
intellect weak and affected his emotions or indulges in certain unusual acts, or had fits of
4
Ramdulare v. State, AIR 1959 MP 259.
5
Supra note 2, s. 84.
6
P.S.A. Pillai (ed.), Criminal Law 105 (Lexis Nexis, 14th edition).
7
Henry Campbell Black, Black’s Law Dictionary, (St. Paul, Minnesota, West Publishing, 1910) available at
https://openjurist.org/law-dictionary/unsound-mind (last visited on 12 Mar.,2023).
7|P a ge
insanity at short intervals or that he was subject to epileptic fits and there was abnormal
behavior or that behavior is queer, are not sufficient to attract the provisions of section 84.8
Section 84, however, applies in cases of fits of insanity at lucid intervals, when it is proved
that the accused was suffering from a fit of insanity at the time of commission of the offence,
and it rendered him incapable of knowing the nature of his act. It will not come into play if
the act was committed during lucid intervals of insanity. A mere warped or twisted mind,
which many a criminal has, cannot qualify to be termed “unsound mind”. It is not every type
of insanity which is recognised medically that is given the protection of this section. Medical
insanity is different from legal insanity. The insanity, for the purpose of section 84, should be
of such a nature that it completely impairs the cognitive faculty of the mind to such an extent
that he is incapable of knowing the nature of his act or what he is doing is wrong or contrary
to law. It is only the legal and not the medical insanity that absolves an accused from criminal
responsibility. 9
CRITICISM OF THE M’NAGHTEN TEST
The M’Naghten insanity test has been widely criticised. It effectively needs total mental
disability, and if the accused is unable to prove this, the defence will fail. In other words, the
insanity argument will fail if the accused “knows” what he or she is doing is wrong. Courts
have understood the phrase “know” to indicate intellectual awareness of what the accused is
doing and that it is wrong. This has been criticised as being overly narrow in evaluating a
person's legal “sanity”.10
In the United Kingdom
Dissatisfaction with the M’Naghten Rules has also been expressed in England, with some
claiming that the right and wrong test was based on an outdated and incorrect understanding of
the nature of insanity. After conducting an exhaustive survey of legal, medical, and lay opinion
in many western countries, including England and the United States, the Royal Commission
on Capital Punishment 1949-1953 concluded that the M’Naghten Rules are not in harmony
with modern medical science due to its reluctance to divide the mind into separate
compartments--the intellect, emotions, and will; rather, it looks at insanity as a whole and
considers that insanity distorts a person's mind. The Royal Commission recommended that the
8
Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand, AIR 2011 SC 627.
9
Supra note 3.
10
David C. Brody, James R. Acker, et al., Criminal Law (Aspen Publishers, Gaithersburg, 2001).
8|P a ge
M’Naghten Rules be repealed or, if retained, that they be expanded to cover cases where the
accused, due to insanity or mental deficiency, did not know the nature and quality of the act,
did not know it was wrong, or was unable to prevent himself from committing it. 11
In India
The concerns linked with the M’Naghten rules have been recognised by Indian courts as well.
The courts have stated that the M’Naghten standards do not take the medical position on
insanity into consideration, resulting in the denial of this argument in many worthy situations.
In contrast to the deliberations/discussions and efforts at law reformation in other common law
countries on the subject of reform of the insanity defence, there is practically complete silence
in India on this front.12 The result is that courts will be bound by the archaic M’Naghten test to
determine insanity even if there are evidences to the effect that an accused is “conceited, odd,
irascible, and his brain is not quite all right;”13 that the physical and mental ailments he suffered
had rendered his intellect weak and had affected his emotions and will; that he committed
certain unusual acts14 have not been held to be sufficient to attract the application of section
84.
FUTURE REFORMS SUGGESTED
Durham Rule
The Durham defence is also known as the “Durham rule,” or the “product test” was established
in the case of Durham v. United States15, the defendant was guilty of breaking into a house and
demanded the plea of insanity in his defence. The existing tests, which were the M’Naghten
Rule and the irresistible impulse test, were declared to be obsolete by the Court of Appeal. But
later on, it was understood that both these tests could still be employed, and the Durham rule
can be used in addition to these tests.
This defence has two main components:
1. First, the defendant must possess a mental disease or infirmity. Although these words
are not explicitly explained in the Durham case, the language of the judicial view
11
Melvin F. Wingersky, “Report of the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment (1949-1953): A Review” 695
(1954).
12
Despite several inadequacies in its phraseology, the Law Commission of India advised in its 42nd report on
the IPC that Section 84 of the IPC “need not be altered in any way.”
13
Abdul Rashid v. Emperor, AIR 1927 Lah 567.
14
Tolaram v. Emperor, AIR 1927 Lah 674.
15
94 U.S. App. D.C. 228.
9|P a ge
indicates an effort to rely more on objective, psychological standards, rather than
focusing on the defendant’s subjective cognition.
2. The second element has to do with causation. If criminal behavior is “caused” by the
mental disease or defect, then the conduct should be exempted under the
circumstances.
This test is currently accepted only in New Hampshire, considering it has been regarded too
broad by other jurisdictions.
Concept of Diminished Responsibility
The Doctrine of Diminished Responsibility was introduced by the Homicide Act of 195716, as
a defence to murder. If this defence is established, it will entitle the offender to be found guilty
of manslaughter (culpable homicide) instead of murder.
Section 2 of the Act clearly states that:
1. Where a person kills someone or is a party to killing, he will not be guilty of murder if
he was suffering from some abnormality of mind and is mentally incapable of taking
responsibility for his acts.
2. A person who would be liable under this section, whether as a principal or as an
accessory, will be convicted of manslaughter instead of being convicted of murder.
Dr. K.A. Pandey is of the view that the defence of insanity as contained in section 84, IPC
should be interpreted in light of modern medical advances. This may be done by the High
Courts and the Supreme Court without encroaching upon the legislative domain held by the
Parliament. The undue insistence on lack of knowledge of “wrongfulness” or “illegality” of the
act is detrimental to the accused in many cases where he or she may be knowing that the act in
question is wrong or illegal but still cannot control himself or herself from doing the same.
Serious cases of irresistible impulse and automatism fall in the same category and should be
recognized as a type of mental disease leading to “unsoundness of mind” as mentioned in
section 84, IPC.17
Any relaxation of the strict requirements of the insanity defence will burden the courts with
many "faked insanity" cases, but this problem can be avoided by including a mandatory "safe
16
The Homicide Act, 1957 (5 & 6 Eliz. 2 c. 11).
17
Dr. Kumar Askand Pandey, Principles of Criminal Law in India - Cases & Material 331 (Central Law
Publications, 2020).
10 | P a g e
custody in a mental asylum" provision in the CrPC in addition to the one that is currently
applicable to such cases. 18 In England, if the jury adopted the insanity defence and declared the
accused not guilty on the grounds of insanity, the prisoner was automatically sent to a mental
hospital to remain at ‘Her Majesty’s Pleasure’. This might go on indefinitely. Thus, unless the
charge was murder and the death penalty was a possibility, there was no motivation to plead
insanity. With the removal of the death sentence in England, claiming insanity as a defence had
little benefit. This resolved the issue of “fake insanity”.19 The same method might be tried in
India as well.
With time, our understanding of psychological disease has increased, and it should reciprocate
in our amnesty towards affected individuals who need to be rehabilitated. The above reforms
are suggested with the hope of positive changes in the law governing the insanity defense.
18
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 02 of 1974), ss. 335, 339.
19
Janet Dine, James Gobert, et al., Cases and Materials on Criminal Law (Oxford University Press, 4th edition).
11 | P a g e
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the M’Naghten Test remains the dominant standard for assessing criminal
responsibility in cases involving the defense of insanity in India. Despite its relatively simple
formulation, the test has been the subject of ongoing debate and criticism, both in India and
elsewhere. While some have argued that the M’Naghten Test is overly restrictive and fails to
adequately account for the complexities of mental illness, others have defended it as a
necessary safeguard against the potential abuse of the insanity defense.
One of the key criticisms of the M’Naghten Test is its binary nature, which requires defendants
to either meet a strict threshold for insanity or be deemed fully responsible for their actions.
This approach has been faulted for failing to account for the wide range of mental states that
can affect an individual's capacity to understand the nature and consequences of their actions.
Similarly, the burden of proof in M’Naghten cases has been criticized for placing an onerous
burden on defendants, who must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they were not
responsible for their actions at the time of the offense.
Despite these criticisms, the M’Naghten Test has remained the dominant standard for assessing
criminal responsibility in India. However, it is important to note that there have been some
attempts to reform the legal approach to the defense of insanity in recent years. For example,
the Mental Healthcare Act of 201720 introduced a new framework for mental health treatment
and care in India, which explicitly recognizes the need to protect the rights of persons with
mental illness and promotes the use of less restrictive forms of intervention where possible.
Overall, it is clear that the M’Naghten Test has played a significant role in shaping the legal
approach to the defense of insanity in India. While there are valid criticisms of the test, its
continued use suggests that it remains a useful tool for balancing the competing interests of
justice, public safety, and the protection of individual rights in cases involving mental illness.
As our understanding of mental illness continues to evolve, it will be important to continue to
critically assess the strengths and weaknesses of the M’Naghten Test and to explore alternative
approaches to the defense of insanity that may better reflect the complexities of mental health
and the principles of justice and human rights.
20
Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 (Act 10 of 2017).
12 | P a g e
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Statutes
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860), s. 84.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 02 of 1974), ss. 335, 339.
The Homicide Act, 1957 (5 & 6 Eliz. 2 c. 11).
Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 (Act 10 of 2017).
Books
P.S.A. Pillai (ed.), Criminal Law 105 (Lexis Nexis, 14th edition).
Henry Campbell Black, Black’s Law Dictionary, (St. Paul, Minnesota, West Publishing, 1910).
David C. Brody, James R. Acker, et al., Criminal Law (Aspen Publishers, Gaithersburg, 2001).
Dr. Kumar Askand Pandey, Principles of Criminal Law in India - Cases & Material 331
(Central Law Publications, 2020).
Janet Dine, James Gobert, et al., Cases and Materials on Criminal Law (Oxford University
Press, 4th edition).
Reports
Melvin F. Wingersky, “Report of the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment (1949-1953):
A Review” 695 (1954).
Law Commission of India, “Forty-Second Report Indian Penal Code” (Ministry of Law, 1971).
Case Law
R v. M’Naghten, (1843) 8 E.R. 718.
Muhammad Husain v. Emperor, 1913 Cri LJ 81.
Ramdulare v. State, AIR 1959 MP 259.
Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand, AIR 2011 SC 627.
Abdul Rashid v. Emperor, AIR 1927 Lah 567.
Tolaram v. Emperor, AIR 1927 Lah 674.
Durham v. United States, 94 U.S. App. D.C. 228.
13 | P a g e
