FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY IN INDIA: LEGAL RELEVANCE AND CHALLENGES

IN CRIMINAL TRIALS

ABSTRACT
Forensic psychiatry is an emerging subspecialty in India and other SAARC nations, where its
integration with the legal system remains limited. This paper traces its historical evolution
and compares its progress in India with that of Europe and the United States. It highlights key
legislative milestones such as the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (1985),
Mental Health Act (1987), Juvenile Justice Act (1989), the Persons with Disabilities Act
(1995), and the Consumer Protection Act (1986). Forensic psychiatry bridges psychiatry’s
clinical insights with legal applications in criminal, civil, and correctional contexts. Despite
its importance, the field remains underdeveloped and often misunderstood in India. The paper
emphasizes the critical role of mental health legislation in safeguarding the rights and dignity
of individuals with mental disorders. It highlights the difficulties encountered in using
psychiatric knowledge in legal proceedings and stresses the importance of effective
legislation to safeguard the rights of persons with mental disorders. It advocates strategic
reforms in education, research, and infrastructure to enhance the contribution of forensic
psychiatry to criminal justice.

INTRODUCTION AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Forensic psychiatry is a developing discipline in India that merges mental health expertise
with the justice system. Like forensic science, it plays a pivotal role in solving crimes,
offering insight into the psychological state and motives behind criminal acts. In many
countries, forensic psychiatrists serve as expert witnesses, interrogators, prison reformers, and
counselors for victims and offenders. Their involvement helps the legal system understand
not only what happened, but why. In India, the process begins with the police, who collect
evidence for forensic labs. Once analyzed, this information is presented in court, where
forensic psychiatry becomes essential in assessing criminal responsibility.

The history of forensic psychology weaves through ancient legends, early legal codes, and
evolving scientific thought. From Cincinnatus feigning madness to avoid duty, to ancient
Chinese and African truth-detection rituals based on fear-induced behavior, early justice
systems relied on symbolic and psychological cues. By the Middle Ages, mental illness was
often equated with demonic possession, leading to tragic consequences like witch executions.
The Enlightenment brought philosophical shifts. Immanuel Kant explored ideas of culpability
and mental disorder, while 19th-century France saw the rise of concepts like “monomania.”
Emil Kraepelin later grounded forensic psychiatry in scientific methods, viewing criminal
behavior as a societal illness. In North America, Hugo Munsterberg pioneered modern
forensic psychology, examining eyewitness testimony and suggestibility. Today, the field
blends psychology and law, supported by structured methods, journals, and ethics. From
mysticism to modernity, forensic psychology has evolved into a rigorous discipline, critically
shaping legal understandings of the mind and behaviour.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK GOVERNING MENTAL ILLNESS & CRIMINAL TRIALS

 Indian Penal Code (Sections 84, 85, 86)

 Code of Criminal Procedure (Sections 328–339)

 Mental Healthcare Act, 2017: Rights-based perspective

 International conventions ratified by India (e.g., UNCRPD)

In North America, Hugo Munsterberg pioneered modern forensic psychology, examining

eyewitness testimony and suggestibility. Today, the field blends psychology and law,
supported by structural methods, journals, and ethics. From mysticism to modernity, forensic
psychology has evolved into a rigorous discipline, critically shaping legal understandings of
the mind and behaviour.

ADD 9 CASELAWS + SUBHEADING

ASSESSMENT OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY AND COMPETENCY

Criminal law is fundamentally based on the premise that wrongful acts are committed with
intent and self-control, thereby holding the offender morally and legally accountable. The
core components of a crime are generally divided into two essential elements: Actus Reus (the
guilty act) and Mens Rea (the guilty mind). According to the subjective fault theory, criminal
liability arises only when the individual is consciously aware of the actions that make their
conduct punishable. Thus, a criminal act requires both a wrongful act and a culpable mental
state—a principle reflected in the Latin maxim “actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea” (an
act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty).

The insanity defense is one of the most debated aspects of law concerning mental illness. The
McNaughton Rule, also called the right-wrong test, provides that to establish a defense of
insanity, it must be clearly shown that, at the time of committing the act, the accused was
suffering from a mental disorder that impaired their ability to understand the nature of the act
or distinguish between right and wrong. This rule emphasizes cognitive understanding over
emotional or volitional factors, making no allowance for lack of control or irresistible
impulses. Ironically, had this standard been applied at McNaughton’s trial, he might not have
been acquitted.

The Irresistible Impulse Test excuses a defendant who, though aware their act was wrong,
couldn’t control their actions due to a mental illness, focusing on loss of self-control rather
than just knowledge. The Substantial Capacity Test from the Model Penal Code is more
flexible, requiring only a lack of substantial ability (not total inability) to understand
wrongfulness or conform behaviour to the law, combining cognitive and volitional aspects.
The Durham Rule, or product test, holds a defendant not criminally responsible if their
unlawful act was a direct result ("product") of a mental disease, emphasizing causation over
awareness or control.

In India, the insanity defense is codified under Section 22 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and
is derived directly from the McNaughton principles. It states that an act is not considered an
offence if the person, due to mental unsoundness at the time of the act, was incapable of
understanding the nature of the act or that it was wrong or illegal. Crucially, only legal
insanity, i.e., mental illness present at the time of the offence, is relevant under this provision
—not medical diagnoses made before or after the incident.
The burden of proving insanity lies on the accused, though it need not meet the stringent
standard of beyond a reasonable doubt; proof by a preponderance of probabilities is
sufficient. This may be demonstrated through circumstances leading up to, during, and after
the crime. For the defense to succeed, three elements must be shown: (1) the accused was
mentally unsound, (2) the unsoundness existed during the act, and (3) this condition rendered
the accused incapable of understanding the nature or wrongfulness of the act. Temporary
emotional outbursts, irritation, or minor mental disturbances do not qualify as legal insanity,
and mere speculation cannot discharge the burden of proof.

SUPREME COURT DECISION ON INSANITY DEFENSE IN INDIA

Not everyone with a mental illness is automatically excused from criminal responsibility. In
Hari Gobind Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Supreme Court clarified that Section 84
of the IPC outlines the legal not medical test for insanity, emphasizing that the law focuses on
legal insanity, not just any mental disorder. Since the IPC doesn’t define “soundness of
mind,” courts often equate it with insanity, though “insanity” itself lacks a precise definition
and can refer to a broad range of conditions. In Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand, the
Court reiterated that mental illness alone doesn't justify exemption; what matters is the
accused’s mental state at the time of the crime.

Similarly, in Rattan Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, it was established that the mental
condition must be proven at the exact moment the offense was committed, using behavioral
evidence before, during, and after the act—not distant history. In Santosh Maruti Mane v.
State of Maharashtra, the Court found the accused guilty due to lack of convincing proof of
his mental incapacity. Most recently, in Devidas Loka Rathod v. State of Maharashtra, the
Supreme Court stated that while the accused can present all relevant evidence, the burden of
proving insanity is not as strict as in criminal cases a balance of probabilities is sufficient.
Once this is met, it is up to the prosecution to disprove the defense.

BURDEN OF PROOF IN INSANITY DEFENSE

In cases where the insanity defense is invoked, the law presumes that the accused is sane, just
as it presumes innocence. Therefore, the accused must present evidence to challenge this
presumption of sanity. While some jurisdictions may then require the prosecution to prove
sanity either beyond a reasonable doubt or by a preponderance of evidence, under Indian law,
the burden of proving insanity (as per Section 22 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section
105 of the Indian Evidence Act) lies with the accused. The court assumes the absence of
circumstances justifying the insanity plea unless proven otherwise. To establish this, the
accused must present substantial material—such as expert opinions, witness testimony,
documents, or even parts of the prosecution’s own evidence demonstrating that, at the time of
the crime, they were incapable of understanding the nature of the act or knowing that it was
wrong or against the law. The Supreme Court has emphasized that the mental condition must
be proven specifically at the time of the offense, and the responsibility to establish this lies
fully on the accused seeking protection under Section 22. In Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai
Thakkar v. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court ruled that when an accused submits insanity
as a defense, they have to establish it under Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act. Such a
burden, though lesser than that of the prosecution, would only entail establishing the
probability of insanity and not establishing it beyond a reasonable doubt.

MEDICAL vs. LEGAL COMPONENT

Medical and legal insanity differ significantly in their implications and relevance in criminal
law. Medical insanity refers broadly to any mental illness diagnosed by a healthcare
professional, whereas legal insanity requires not just mental illness but also a demonstrable
loss of reasoning or rational understanding at the time of the offense. Courts are only
concerned with legal insanity, as defined under Section 22 of the BNS, which sets a higher
threshold than medical diagnosis. For a defendant to be considered legally insane, three
conditions must be fulfilled: (a) the person must be suffering from a mental disorder, (b) the
disorder must have been present at the time of committing the act, and (c) due to this mental
condition, the person must have been incapable of understanding the nature of the act or
knowing that it was wrong or against the law. Unlike medical treatment, which aims at
healing, criminal law prioritizes accountability and deterrence; hence, even a mentally ill
person is not exempt from liability unless their condition meets the stringent criteria of legal
insanity.

COMPARATIVE STUDY: US, AFRICA, EUROPE & INDIA

America: In the U.S., forensic psychiatry is part of a well-established legal framework,

though practices vary between states due to differing interpretations of the Model Penal
Code. The concept of fitness to stand trial is strictly applied, and active participation of the
accused is mandated. Latin American countries, following Roman law traditions, consider
both cognitive and volitional aspects when determining criminal responsibility. However,
most assessments are still carried out by general psychiatrists, not specialists, and there's a
lack of integration between the legal and health systems.
Europe: European countries have better-trained psychiatric professionals within their
prison systems, but the demand far exceeds capacity. Many inmates with severe disorders
are not transferred to appropriate facilities. Sweden reformed its legal criteria to restrict
psychiatric defenses, but the number of insanity pleas remained high due to loopholes. The
UK applies rigorous standards but faces similar issues of an overburdened psychiatric
infrastructure.

Africa: African countries face significant challenges due to acute shortages of trained
forensic psychiatrists, outdated colonial-era laws, language barriers, and deep-rooted
societal stigma. Mental health facilities are often extensions of prisons, and patients suffer
from neglect and human rights violations. In many regions, practices like suicide and
homosexuality are criminalized, further complicating psychiatric care.

India: India’s forensic psychiatric system largely focuses on legal insanity as per Section
22, BNS with limited infrastructure and a shortage of trained forensic experts. Similar to
Africa and Latin America, general psychiatrists often handle legal evaluations. There's also
a lack of formal coordination between the judiciary and mental health services. However,
India can learn from global best practices by:
 Investing in specialized forensic psychiatry training,
 Ensuring integration between health and justice systems (as seen in parts of Europe and
Argentina),
  Establishing standardized procedures for fitness to stand trial, as practiced in North
America,
 Expanding mental health legislation and prison reforms to protect the rights and dignity
of mentally ill individuals.

CRTIQUES: CHALLENGES TO INSANITY PLEA

Critics of the insanity defense argue that it is fundamentally flawed and should either be
abolished or significantly restricted. One major concern is the vagueness of the terms used in
various legal tests for insanity, which often leads to subjective interpretations and moral
judgments disguised as objective legal findings. Furthermore, psychiatry does not provide a
solid foundation for experts to conclusively determine whether an individual should be held
morally responsible for a crime, yet such definitive testimony is frequently presented in court.
From a therapeutic standpoint, critics assert that labelling individuals as helpless victims due
to mental illness undermines efforts to treat them as responsible agents, which is considered
more effective for rehabilitation. Additionally, they point out that the insanity defense
unfairly privileges those whose criminal behaviour is attributed to mental illness, while
disregarding others influenced by non-medical factors such as trauma or adverse social
conditions. Lastly, opponents emphasize that the insanity defense often functions as a "rich
person’s defense," since only those with financial means can typically afford the expert
witnesses required to make a compelling case. They argue that limited psychiatric resources
would be better used to treat individuals already in mental health institutions or prisons rather
than supporting expensive legal defenses.

CURRENT LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS IN FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY IN INDIA

Recent legal developments in forensic psychiatry in India reflect a growing awareness of

mental health rights and the intersection of psychiatry and law. The Mental Health Act, 1987
was a major shift from custodial care to a rights-based and treatment-focused approach,
ensuring judicial safeguards and human dignity for mentally ill individuals. However,
challenges remain, such as the misuse of Section 84 IPC (insanity defense) and continued
illegal detention of non-criminal mentally ill persons in prisons.

The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 criminalizes drug possession
with harsh punishments, yet lacks adequate rehabilitation provisions. The Juvenile Justice
Act, 1989 reformed juvenile care but still faces issues in implementation. Legal reforms like
the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 have
extended rights and remedies to mentally ill individuals.

Despite these laws, enforcement remains weak, and awareness among legal, police, and
medical professionals is limited. Forensic psychiatry, as a specialized field, lacks
infrastructure, research, and dedicated training programs. There is an urgent need for
improved training, clinical centers, and interdisciplinary collaboration to uphold human rights
and enhance the delivery of mental health justice in India.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS AND THE WAY FORWARD

Telepsychiatry, which uses video and audio communication to deliver mental health care
remotely, is emerging as a valuable tool in expanding psychiatric services, particularly in
forensic settings. It allows for live consultations, therapy, training, and education, offering
cost-effective and timely psychiatric evaluations in prisons and court systems. This helps
address delays and logistical challenges, enabling better access to forensic psychiatrists. In
sensitive cases like child abuse, telepsychiatry ensures secure sharing of evidence and
promotes collaboration among professionals.

However, its rise brings legal and ethical concerns such as licensing issues, data security,
patient privacy, consent, and liability. Addressing these challenges calls for revising existing
laws like the Mental Healthcare Act (MHCA), enhancing legal literacy among psychiatrists,
and increasing psychiatric awareness in the legal system. Establishing clear ethical standards
and standardized methods for assessing legal insanity is also vital. There is a growing need
for academic research and specialized certification programs, like those from the Indian
Psychiatric Society (IPS), to develop expertise and ensure consistency in forensic psychiatric
practice across India.

SUGGESTIONS AND CONCLUSION

BOARD INDEPENDENCE AND RELATED-PARTY TRANSACTIONS:

LESSONS FROM ENRON

Corporate governance has become a cornerstone of modern business ethics, especially in the
wake of high-profile corporate collapses such as Enron. The Enron scandal, which exposed
deep flaws in board oversight and ethics, highlights how unchecked executive power,
conflicts of interest, and ineffective boards can lead to catastrophic consequences for
stakeholders. This case offers valuable lessons on the dangers of related-party transactions
(RPTs) and the critical role of board independence in maintaining corporate integrity.

Recent controversies in South Korea’s chaebol system echo similar concerns. Despite
regulatory efforts, chaebol owners and their families continue to exploit unlisted affiliates to
receive hefty dividends, often at the expense of shareholders in listed subsidiaries. These
RPTs are frequently used to shift profits and assets within group firms, enabling wealth
transfer and earnings manipulation. While some argue RPTs enhance efficiency and contract
enforcement, growing evidence suggests they are often tools for self-dealing and exploitation.

This paper examines the relationship between board independence and RPTs, drawing
insights from Enron to underscore the risks posed by weak governance structures. The failure
to ensure independent oversight enables the misuse of internal transactions, damaging public
trust and shareholder value. Strengthening board independence remains vital for curbing
corporate misconduct and safeguarding stakeholder interests.

Rubrics (25 Marks)

 Topic Selection & Relevance (5 Marks) Clear, specific, and contemporary topic
establishing a connection between Forensic Science and Law.
 Research and Evidence (5 Marks) recent research papers and at least 15 cases the
supporting claims.
 Application of the Relevant Principles (4 Marks)
 Analysis & Critical Thinking (2 Marks)
 Current Legal Developments (4 Marks)
 Citation & Formatting (3 Marks) (OSCOLA or BLUEBOOK).
 Conclusion and Suggestions (2 Marks)