Anyone with a mental illness or history of mental health issues automatically escapes punishment for a crime.

Courts require proof that at the exact time of the act, the person could not understand the nature of the act or know it was wrong or illegal — mere history of mental illness is not enough.

Claiming insanity is an easy way to avoid conviction.

The accused bears the burden of proving unsoundness of mind, and courts closely scrutinize medical evidence and behavior before, during, and after the act.

Being found not guilty by reason of unsoundness of mind means going free immediately.

Courts can and often do order such persons to be kept in psychiatric custody or treatment facilities rather than released outright.

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

Section 22

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.§

Why this exists

This rule comes from the old English 'M'Naghten Rules' (1843), a legal test developed after a mentally ill man named Daniel M'Naghten was tried for murder. The idea is that criminal punishment is meant for people who can choose between right and wrong. If a person's mind is so disturbed that they cannot understand their actions or know they are wrong, punishing them serves no purpose and is unjust. This principle was carried into Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and has now been re-enacted as Section 22 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, with the same wording and meaning.

How courts read it

Indian courts, interpreting the identical earlier provision (IPC Section 84), have clarified that 'unsoundness of mind' is a legal, not purely medical, concept. Not every mental illness qualifies; the person must be shown to have been incapable, at the exact time of the act, of knowing the nature of the act or that it was wrong or illegal. Courts have held that the burden of proving this insanity lies on the accused, that mere abnormality, eccentricity, or history of mental illness is not enough, and that conduct before, during, and after the act (like attempts to hide evidence or flee) can help judges assess whether real incapacity existed. Cases such as *Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand* and *Bapu v. State of Rajasthan* have discussed how this defense should be evaluated using medical and circumstantial evidence together.

Common misconceptions

Myth: Anyone with a mental illness or history of mental health issues automatically escapes punishment for a crime.
Fact: Courts require proof that at the exact time of the act, the person could not understand the nature of the act or know it was wrong or illegal — mere history of mental illness is not enough.
Myth: Claiming insanity is an easy way to avoid conviction.
Fact: The accused bears the burden of proving unsoundness of mind, and courts closely scrutinize medical evidence and behavior before, during, and after the act.
Myth: Being found not guilty by reason of unsoundness of mind means going free immediately.
Fact: Courts can and often do order such persons to be kept in psychiatric custody or treatment facilities rather than released outright.