As the criminal justice system in India struggles to address the special difficulties presented by people with mental health disorders who commit crimes, there is growing concern about the relationship between criminal law and mental health.
India’s criminal justice system has always placed a high priority on punishment and deterrence, but as our understanding of mental illness has grown, so too have the limitations of this strategy become apparent, particularly when dealing with mentally ill offenders.
The increasing awareness that mental illnesses frequently play a role in criminal activity has spurred discussions on how the legal system ought to treat mentally ill people.
This article explores India’s criminal justice system’s disparity between punishment and treatment, as well as the country’s current legal structure, issues, and possible reforms that could make the system more humane and efficient.
Addressing Mental Health and the Criminal Justice System
According to data gathered by Statista, the United States has the highest rate of incarceration and the largest population of prisoners worldwide:
Approximately one million individuals were incarcerated in the United States as of July 2021.
In contrast, China’s overall population is more than four times that of the United States, yet estimates place the country’s jail population at 1.7 million in 2021.
Brazil comes in third place with over 760,000 prisoners.
As of May 2021, the United States had the second-highest rate of incarceration per capita, at 639 per 100,000; El Salvador had the second-highest rate, at 562 per 100,000.
The potential link between mental illness and criminality is a common focus of efforts to lower the number of people incarcerated in the United States.
Enhancing the efficacy of mental health therapy is regarded as a crucial element in crime prevention initiatives.
These initiatives aid in ensuring that the criminal justice system appropriately attends to the mental health needs of defendants and other parties involved in criminal proceedings.
How Mental Health Affects the Criminal Justice System
When a defendant in a criminal case has a serious mental condition, most courts will first try to get them into a residential psychiatric care facility so they can receive therapy meant to regain their mental capacity.
Placing inmates in these facilities, however, could not be feasible. (Statista. “Incarceration Rates Worldwide.” Statista) Given the COVID-19 pandemic and its effect on the amount of space available for usage by prisoners and inmates in need of mental health care.
Patients who are ordered to be admitted by the courts for the purpose of restoring their competency may not receive treatment for weeks or months.
Their symptoms may worsen and their prognosis over the long term may worsen the longer that therapy is postponed.
The open-living arrangements at most long-term psychiatric care facilities have been limited by contact restrictions implemented to deter the spread of the coronavirus.
This has reduced the availability of much-needed mental health care for the population in greatest need of professional assistance.
The Constitution of India
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one may be deprived of their life or personal freedom unless it is done so by legally prescribed processes. According to a ruling, this article’s guarantee of the right to life and personal liberty includes the ability to read, write, and express oneself in a variety of ways, as well as the freedom to move around and interact with other people.
A person who is of unsound mind and has been adjudged to be such by a competent court is ineligible to be registered on an electoral roll, as per Section 16 of the Representation of People Act, 1950. As a result, the individual in question is prohibited under the Constitution from holding public office, such as that of President, Vice-President, Minister, Member of Parliament, or State Legislature.
Indian laws regulating the treatment of persons with mental disorders, when treating PMI, the relationship between psychiatry and law is most frequently relevant. Psychiatric patients’ freedom is frequently restricted as part of their treatment for PMI. Most nations in the world have rules governing how mental patients are treated.
The treatment of the mentally ill in Indian asylums is a British invention, even though numerous Ayurvedic treatises contain detailed descriptions of various types of mental diseases. Following the British crown’s seizure of India’s governance in 1858, a plethora of rules governing the care and treatment of mentally ill individuals were swiftly passed in British India. These regulations were
- The Lunacy (Supreme Courts) Act, 1858
- The Lunacy (District Courts) Act, 1858
- The Indian Lunatic Asylum Act, 1858 (with amendments passed in 1886 and 1889)
- The Military Lunatic Acts, 1877
These Acts provided instructions on how to set up mental asylums and how to admit individuals with mental illnesses. The Indian lunatic laws of that era were influenced by the British scene that existed in the middle of the 19th century. Naturally, the several Acts of 1858 mirrored the legalistic framework for the treatment of mentally sick people.
In the initial ten years of the 1900s, the Indian intellectuals led a growing political consciousness and nationalistic viewpoints, which in turn highlighted the deplorable state of mental hospitals.
The Indian Lunacy Act, of 1912, was passed as a result. The 1912 Act shaped psychiatry’s course in India. After being renamed mental hospitals in 1922, lunatic asylums were now subject to central government regulation and oversight. In this regard, the certification and admissions process were well-defined.
The option of voluntary entry was made available. The emphasis remained primarily on safeguarding society from the dangers of mental illness and making sure that no sane person was admitted to these asylums. In these facilities, psychiatrists were assigned as full-time officers.
The Act also included provisions for judicial inquisitions of mentally ill individuals. The UN General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights following World War II.
- Definition of mental illness in a progressive way and introduction of the modern concept of their treatment with stress on care and treatment rather than on custody.
- Establishment of a Central/State Mental Health Authority to regulate and supervise the psychiatric hospitals/nursing homes and to advise Central/State Governments on Mental Health matters.
- Admission in special circumstances in psychiatric hospitals/nursing homes. Provisions of voluntary admission and admission on the reception orders were retained.
- Role of Police and Magistrate to deal with cases of wandering PMI and PMI cruelly treated.
- Protection of human rights of PMI.
- Guardianship and Management of properties of PMI
- Provisions of penalties in case of breach of provisions of the Act
Despite having a lot going for it, the MHA-1987 has faced criticism from the day it was introduced. It is purportedly primarily focused on the legal processes related to PMI licensing, admissions regulation, and guardianship. This Act does not adequately address the delivery of mental health care and human rights issues. The Act can never be properly implemented due to the numerous intricate procedures, flaws, and absurdities in both the Act and the Rules issued under it.
Human rights advocates have questioned the MHA, 1987’s constitutionality since it restricts individual freedoms without allowing for a meaningful judicial review. To comply with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), MHA-87 is presently undergoing modification.
“written by Abhishek Kumar, students of LL.M at National Forensic Sciences University”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.