ABSTRACT
Mental disorder is now one of the main problems of the modern world. Although it is commonly elusive, misunderstood and even stigmatized in the social and legal context. In the Indian context the matter of mental health is closely linked to law, justice and human rights especially with respect to accused or those undergoing long-term institutionalization. This article also seeks to consider the social, legal and judicial aspect of mental illness in India by analysing the way in which courts in India have interpreted the constitutional safeguards for persons with mental illness. Through an analysis of laws, judicial decisions and official documents, including the National Mental Health Survey (2015–2016), the study brings out success stories of upholding dignity, as well as the continuing failings to ensure freedom of persons with mental illness.
The study examines the Constitutional Provisions, Criminal Law Principles and Precedents which include ruling in the case of Mrs. Veena Sethi vs. State of Bihar (1982) which stated that the plight of detenus was also in conformity with article 21 of the constitution. It examines case law, mental health statutes and secondary sources like law review articles and reports to determine how the legal system treats both issues like insanity, detention following acquittal and the broader rights of the mentally ill. The study also employs a comparative approach, briefly surveying international conventions and practices to quantify India’s commitment to global human rights. Rehabilitation, an integral piece of this inquiry, has its place in a criminal justice system. Long incarceration or incarceration within a hospital has to give way to reintegration, by programmes of intensive rehabilitation. These can be inpatient in the acute stage, community mental health services; halfway houses for post-hospitalisation rehabilitation or long-term housing; supported accommodation for those with long-term limitations due to the disorder; facilities such as group homes and supported housing with more intensive models; and psychosocial rehabilitation services. Rehabilitation should not be limited to medical care but extend to vocation, family counselling and govt support to help recovered persons live with dignity.
This study underscores that mental illness is not simply a disorder but a question of constitution and human rights. Indian judiciary is evidencing recognition of the rights of mentally ill persons to life, liberty, dignity and rehabilitation but effective implementation is still an issue. The Indian courts have begun to recognize that the liberty, dignity, and rehabilitation of the mentally ill individuals is something that it ought to protect, but implementation is a drag. This research advocates for integrating medical care, legal protections, rehabilitation, and its all evidence-based approach to develop a more equitable and humane criminal law response to mental illness.
KEYWORDS.
Mental illness, Insanity defence, Men Rea. Criminal Justice, Indian Judiciary, Rehabilitation
INTRODUCTION
Mental illness, also referred to as mental disorder, encompasses a wide range of conditions that affect a person’s thinking, feeling, mood, and behaviour.
Mental illness has appeared as one of the most significant issues in modern society. Mentally ill individuals occupy a uniquely vulnerable position in society. Mentally ill people are extremely vulnerable and are far more likely to be victims of violence than to commit acts of violence themselves. Socially, those with mental illnesses are particularly vulnerable. This fact contradicts the belief that criminal activity or risky conduct are the primary indicators of mental illness. The need for safety and rehabilitation is even more critical because research from several jurisdictions has shown that people with mental illnesses frequently experience abuse, discrimination, and social isolation. In addition to making sure that mentally ill criminals are dealt with through fair and compassionate legal procedures, the state has a duty to protect them from any sort of abuse, whether in prison environments or in society at large, according to human rights principles. Any discussion on the rehabilitation of mentally ill individuals who have been found not guilty must therefore acknowledge their increased vulnerability and formulate interventions in a way that puts dignity first.
This fact contradicts the traditional view that links mental illness with criminality or threats to society. Indeed, the need for protection and rehabilitation for those with mental health in light of their social exclusion, discrimination and abuse, also has been demonstrated in various studies across jurisdictions. From a human rights standpoint, the state has a duty to ensure not only that the mentally ill offenders are subjected to a fair and humane legal process, but also to protect mentally ill offenders against repeated abuse. And to protect these people from further victimization, in prison or the community. Accordingly, any discussion of post-acquittal mentally ill offender rehabilitation should acknowledge the particular vulnerability of this population and to conceptualize positive intervention as not just containing this vulnerable group, but ultimately as treating them with dignity and care and reintegrating them back into society.
The research also look into the scope of the application of Mc Naughten’s rule and Section 22 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS) replaces “unsoundness of mind” under Section 84 IPC with “mental condition,” broadening the scope of defence that include disorders such as PTSD, schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder. This shift, also read with the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017—which guarantees dignity, access to the best available treatment, and safeguards against abuse for persons with mental illness—reflects a progressive alignment of criminal law with psychiatric understanding and human rights principles.
The rehabilitation and its main purpose is to provide appropriate treatment for re-offending and promote community re-integration. The treatment and constant meditation management but ensuring consistent mental health treatment which include therapy and medication adherence is very essential for stability and rehabilitation. Rehabilitation for acquitted offenders with mental illness requires a multi-pronged approach, which addresses both medical and social aspects alongside upholding legal and ethical principles. Collaborative effort among mental health professional criminal justice agencies and the community are very paramount for successful reintegration and also creating a more just and supportive society.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The research design adopted in this study is a legal doctrinal research, which seeks to understand the intricate nexus between mental illness, law, and crime. The work relies on both descriptive and analytical research methods to offer a precise and clearly structured account, considering in the Indian legal jurisprudence and society how mental illness is defined, recognized, and managed. Legal primary source text has been studied which consists of the following (The Indian Penal Code (IPC) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Mental Healthcare Act of 2017 These sources set the legal footing in the study. The cases serve to narrow the distance between legal theory and practice. Analysis also depends on secondary sources. Recommended texts, legislative sources, academic journals, and institutions such as NIMHANS (National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences) and WHO (World Health Organization) also offer data, and right perspective on mental health situations in India.
The methodology explains the concepts such as legal tests for insanity, including the McNaughten Rule, which helps clarify the purpose and functioning of laws related to mental illness.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
This review is composition of key legal, judicial, and public health sources to contextualize the relationship between mental illness and the criminal justice system in India.The legal framework in Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), a provision based on the McNaughten Rule. This law excuses criminal liability for those with “unsoundness of mind” who cannot understand the nature of their actions. The recent Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, updates this by using the broader term “mental condition,” reflecting a progressive alignment with modern psychiatric understanding and the Mental Healthcare Act (MHCA), 2017.
Judicial precedents have significantly expanded on these laws. Landmark rulings, such as Veena Sethi v. State of Bihar, established that the indefinite detention of mentally ill individuals violates their fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21. . Other cases, including Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra and Rupesh Manger v. State of Sikkim, have reinforced that the focus of the insanity defense is on legal insanity at the time of the crime, not just a medical diagnosis.
Despite this legal progress, a critical gap exists in practical rehabilitation. Data from NIMHANS and other sources show a high prevalence of mental illness in India and a severe lack of community-based rehabilitation programs. The current literature often focuses on legal theory and institutional care, but it lacks detailed analysis of effective social reintegration, vocational training, and supportive housing models. This study aims to fill that void by advocating for an evidence-based approach to rehabilitation.
MENTAL ILLNESS AND CRIME
The National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (NIMHANS) study has revealed that 13.7%[1] per cent of India’s general population suffers from some form of mental illness and with 2% experience severe conditions. Research indicates that individuals with mental illness or mental disorders may be more inclined to engage in criminal behaviour, as such conditions significantly affect a person’s ability to understand reality, make rational decisions, or exercise self-control. In certain cases, these can contribute to the commission of crimes.Crime is an act or omission that is prohibited by law and punishable. Crime disturb public order, harm individual and society and violate legal norms.
TYPE OF MENTAL DISORDER:
1)SCHIZOPHRENIA
Schizophrenia is a serious mental illness that affects how a person thinks, feels, and behaves. People with schizophrenia hear voices, have false beliefs, think in a confused way, or show less emotion. These symptoms make it hard for them to understand reality and make good decisions. Sometimes, during intense episodes, individuals with schizophrenia may act violently and break the law, especially if they feel threatened or hear harmful voices.
2) DEPRESSION
Depression is a common mental illness that presents with depressed mood, loss of interest or pleasure, lower energy, feeling of guilt or low self-worth, no sleep or appetite, and poor concentration. People with depression could have problems related to appetite, sleep, fatigue and concentration. Also stress was accompanied by episodes of suicidal thoughts .While depression is mostly integrated with internal distress, it can also contribute to criminal behaviour, especially when grouped with financial difficulties or substance abuse. Proper diagnosis, treatment, and social support are pivotal to help individuals manage depression and reduce the risk of negative outcomes.
3) BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDER (BPD)
Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) is a mental illness which is caused by strong, unstable emotions and impulsive behaviour. People with BPD have trouble maintaining relationships and controlling their anger. This emotional instability could sometimes lead to aggressive actions or criminal behaviour, especially during stressful times or conflicts. Studies show that those with BPD may be more prone to violent acts like assault or domestic violence. When combined with substance abuse or antisocial behaviour, the risk of crime increases. This highlights the importance of specialized mental health care and support for managing emotions.
4) ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDER
Individuals with ASPD often show behaviours such as deceitfulness, impulsivity, aggression, and a lack of remorse for their actions. This disorder can lead to difficulties in forming healthy relationships and is frequently associated with criminal behaviour and repeat offenses. Understanding ASPD is important for addressing its impact on both individuals and society.
Legal framework
Criminal behaviours are led by different factors. And it is very important to examine the linkage between mental illness and criminal behaviour ,where men rea, or the “guilty mind,” is a fundamental component of criminal law, as an act alone does not amount to a crime without the intention to commit it. This concept is expressed in the legal maxim “Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea,” meaning that an act is not considered an offense unless it is accompanied by a culpable state of mind. However, in situations where mental illness is involved, this criminal intent may be lacking or significantly diminished, making it essential to assess the offender’s mental condition, including their thoughts, emotions, and understanding of their actions. Consequently, the connection between mental illness and criminal conduct is critical in establishing criminal liability.
Mc Naughten Rule
The McNaughten Rule is a legal standard established in England in 1843 following the case of Daniel McNaughten,[2] who committed murder under the belief that he was being targeted. According to this rule, a person cannot be held criminally liable if, at the time of the offense, they were affected by a mental disorder that impaired their ability to understand the nature of their actions or to recognize that those actions were wrong. In India, this principle has been incorporated into Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which states that an act committed by someone who, due to mental illness, is unable to comprehend the nature of the act or that it is illegal, does not constitute a criminal offense. This rule continues to serve as the basis for the insanity defence in Indian criminal law, and still it remains the foundation of inanity in India .
Indian Penal Code (IPC):
The Indian Penal Code of 1860[3] includes mental illness in criminal cases under Section 84. This section says that a person is not guilty if, at the time they committed the act, they didn’t understand what they were doing or didn’t know it was wrong because of a mental illness. This means that to be held responsible for a crime, a person must have a “guilty mind,” and people with serious mental illness may not have this.
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023:
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, introduced in 2023[4] and replacing the IPC, keeps a similar rule about mental illness and crime. Section 22 says that if a person cannot understand what they are doing or its consequences because of a mental disorder, they should not be blamed for the crime. This shows that the law tries to be fair to people with mental disabilities while also protecting society.
Mental Healthcare Act, 2017:
Mental Healthcare Act of 2017[5] is the landmark legislation, which safeguards the rights of mentally ill persons in India. It makes sure that everyone has access to good, cheap mental health care and is dealt with respectfully and kindly, not abused. The law mandates that the government must make sufficient mental health services available and says that people with mental illness have the same rights as everyone else. It is an approach that focuses on enabling people to recover and return to society from rather than remain in hospital”.
CASE LAWS
- RATAN LAL V. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AIR 1971 SC 1718.
Fact :The accused, Ratan Lal, was a 12-year-old boy suffering from a mental illness. He was found guilty of committing arson by setting fire to a hut. Evidence, including a doctor’s testimony, indicated that at the time of the act, he was in a state of mental instability and likely did not understand the nature or consequences of his actions. The lower court, however, had convicted him, relying on its own later observation of his mental state.
In the Ratan Lal vs State of Madhya Pradesh case[6]The Supreme Court ruled that to apply the insanity defence under Section 84 IPC, the accused’s mental state must be examined at the time of the crime. Evidence from medical reports and witness testimonies showed that Ratan Lal was suffering from a mental illness and was unable to understand the nature or wrongfulness of his act when he committed arson. The Court found that the lower court made a mistake by ignoring this evidence and relying on its own observations later. As a result, Ratan Lal was acquitted based on the insanity defence.
2)VEENA SETHI V. STATE OF BIHAR AIR (1982) 2 SCC 583
Facts: The case was initiated based on a letter from a journalist highlighting the plight of several individuals, including many with mental illnesses, who were languishing in jails in the state of Bihar. They had been detained for years, even after being acquitted or having completed their sentences. This gross negligence on the part of the state meant these individuals were deprived of their freedom and dignity.
In Veena Sethi vs State of Bihar (1982)[7]The Supreme Court here held that keeping mentally ill prisoners in jail for years even after being declared sane and acquitted violated their fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21. The Court ordered their immediate release, told the State to provide financial assistance for their return home, and also regular reviews of remaining detainees. The judgment also criticized the authorities’ negligence and reminded the State of its duty to uphold the dignity and all the rights of vulnerable individuals.
3) SHRIKANT ANANDRAO BHOSALE V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA , (2002) 7 SCC 748.[8]
Facts: The accused, Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale, a police constable, was charged with the murder of his wife. The defence argued that at the time of the offense, he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and therefore could not be held criminally responsible. The prosecution pointed to the absence of direct evidence of his mental state during the crime, relying on the fact that he was a police officer and had no history of previous criminal behaviour.
The Supreme Court examined whether he was legally insane at the time of the crime. Considering his medical history, repeated treatment, and lack of clear motive, the Court found reasonable doubt about his ability to understand his actions due to mental illness. Applying the standard of proof on a balance of probabilities, the Court acquitted him under Section 84 of the IPC, highlighting the importance of assessing the accused’s mental state at the time of the offense for the insanity defence.
4)RUPESH MANGER V. STATE OF SIKKIM (2023) 1 SCC 225.[9]
Facts: The accused, Rupesh Manger, was charged with the murder of his own grandmother. The lower courts had convicted him. His defence appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that Manger was suffering from a mental illness and had committed the act in a fit of delusion, without understanding that his actions were wrong. The defence provided medical evidence to support this claim.
The supreme court said that if a person is mentally unsound and he doesn’t understand what he is doing is wrong at the time of a crime, he shouldn’t be punished. The Court explained that it’s not about medical illness but whether the person was legally insane when they committed the act. Also, a court can’t change an acquittal just because they see the evidence differently unless the original decision was clearly wrong. After looking at the facts and medical proof, the Court agreed that Rupesh was not responsible for the crime because of his mental state and let him go free.
REHABILITATION
The rehabilitation of mentally ill criminals calls for an integrated approach that aims at restoring their social skills, moral insight and job skills in order to lead them back to normal life in society. That includes targeted mental health care, job training, and help to re-integrate into society.
In India the court system faced many challenges in serving justice which included mentally ill accused.
The rehabilitation of the mentally ill offender is an integral part of a system of justice with humaneness. It also emphasizes social reintegration and the protection of rights of persons infected with and affected by leprosy. Rehabilitation must be multilateral, including in-patient care in an acute psychiatric unit as well as re-hospitalization for the management of relapses.
But real rehabilitation is more than the medical treatment — it also comes with outside community-based resources like halfway houses. These are supervised living, psychiatric, job-training and whistleblower-counselling facilities.
Reintegration is about more than just the clinical treatment that half way houses provide. These are halfway houses with supervised living arrangements accompanied by psychiatric support, vocational training and continued follow-up sessions. Overseas, countries such as the United States and Canada have long-standing halfway house models that allow prisoners with psychiatric problems to resume living in a structured setting in preparation for re-entry into the wider community.
In India, though the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 guarantees the right to community-based rehabilitation and integration, formal halfway house infrastructure remains limited. Much reliance is placed on psychiatric hospitals and NGOs. The Supreme Court has emphasized the necessity of proper rehabilitation facilities over mere custodial institutions, affirming that redesignating old-age homes as halfway houses is insufficient for effective rehabilitation.
Treatments modalities at rehabilitation commonly used are psychiatric care, cognitive behavioural therapy, training of skills and aftercare. These are designed to prevent relapse and criminal recidivism.
Moreover, studies suggest that programs that include both a correctional and a psychiatric rehabilitation approach are most successful when it comes to working with mentally disordered offenders.
Recovery and dignity Restoring a semblance of normality–or what is left of it–begins with establishing a well-rounded framework for rehabilitation that includes medical treatment, social support, vocational training, and the rights of legal protection.
SUGGESTION
To create a more equal and humane system for those individuals with mental illness who enter the criminal justice system, a multi- dimensional approach is essential. This requires both legislative and judicial reform and a fundamental shift in the approach to mental healthcare.
1.Rehabilation Based on Infrastructure
The core of any progressive reform must be based on establishment of community-based rehabilitation centers. Also the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 mandates community living as a right, but on-the-ground implementation is weak. Halfway Homes, these centers are very essential for providing a structured environment with psychiatric specialists and vocational training. They serve as a pivotal bridge between institutional care and full social reintegration.
Day-care Centers are for individuals who do not require residential care, day-care centers can offer a range of services, including therapy, skill-building workshops, and support groups, which allow them to remain within their family environment and community.
Psychosocial Rehabilitation Services also play a very significant role which extend beyond medical treatment to include services that address social, vocational, and educational needs. This involves helping individuals, find employment, and reconnect with their families and communities.
2.Establish Training and Inter collaboration
The most important barrier for effective care is the lack of training and coordination between agencies. Police and judiciary should receive mandatory training to identify mental illness. And understand the principle of the Mental Health Care Act 2007. The training should focus on right based approaches and the proper procedure for handling those individual with mental illness.
The government needs to invest in training more psychiatrists and psychiatric social workers professionals. A dedicated team composed of legal experts, mental health professionals, and social workers should be formed. These teams would work collectively to ensure a holistic approach, from pre-trial assessment to post-acquittal rehabilitation.
3.Funding and Resource Management
Mental health receives a mear portion of India’s health budget. This underfunding directly impacts the quality and availability of treatment. The government must increase the allocation for mental health in the national budget to align it with international standards. This funding should be specifically earmarked for community-based services, not just large institutional facilities.
By encouraging private sector and NGO involvement through partnerships and funding models, Non-governmental organizations often have the expertise and community trust to deliver effective rehabilitation programs. Incentivizing such partnerships can help bridge the resource gap.
4. Reform in Legal system
The legal system must support not just punishment. For non-violent offenders with mental illness, the criminal justice system should prioritize different programs that send individuals to treatment and rehabilitation instead of jail. This approach is more effective at preventing recidivism and promotes a more therapeutic outcome.
Periodic Review Mechanisms: Establish a system for regular review of all individuals in institutional care, including those acquitted under the insanity defence, to prevent indefinite detention as seen in cases like Veena Sethi v. State of Bihar. This ensures that liberty is restored as soon as the individual is deemed fit for community reintegration
CONCLUSION
The treatment of mentally ill offenders after they are acquitted should focus on true rehabilitation, not just legal release. It is important to provide support that helps them recover, reintegrate into society, and live with dignity. Effective The care of the mentally ill offender who is acquitted should be about more than legal in society. The good news is that meaningful rehabilitation can not only save society, unnecessarily repeated offenses and river prisons, but it can also make it easier to balance fairness and compassion. Without nurturing and treatment, this cycle of illness and incarceration can continue, to the detriment of the individual and society. The rehabilitation and its main purpose is to provide appropriate treatment for re-offending and promote community re-integration. The treatment and constant meditation management but ensuring consistent mental health treatment which include therapy and medication adherence is very essential for stability and rehabilitation. Rehabilitation for acquitted offenders with mental illness requires a multi-pronged approach, which addresses both medical and social aspects alongside upholding legal and ethical principles. Collaborative effort among mental health professional criminal justice agencies and the community are very paramount for successful reintegration and also creating a more just and supportive society.
NAME : SNEHA
COLLEGE : ASIAN LAW COLLEGE , NOIDA
[1] Advancing Mental Healthcare in India | Ministry of Health and Family Welfare | GOI https://share.google/xGbN2bLyIaUOkPczk
[2] R v. Daniel Mc Naughten (1843) 10 CI & Fin 200, 8 ER 718 ( House of Lords).
[3] The Indian penal code, 1860, section 84
[4] Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act No. 45 of 2023), Government of India.
[5] The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, Government of India.
[6] Ratan Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1971 SC 778
[7] Veena Sethi v. State of Bihar, AIR 1983 SC 339.
[8] Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 7 SCC 748.
[9] Rupesh Manger v. State of Sikkim, Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 2023 (Supreme Court of India).