"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere"- Martin Luther King

When an individual has committed an unlawful act and faces consequences as a result, it is a manifestation of justice. However, if they can provide a valid explanation for their actions, demonstrating that they didn't have the intention to violate the law, giving them punishment cannot be considered right. That is not justice. This underscores the significance of providing relief to individuals whose actions can be excused or justified.

This concept of defences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) can be traced back to the limitations of retributive and deterrent theories of punishment. It acknowledges that individuals who did not understand their actions, lacked awareness, or found themselves in situations where they had no alternative may not be held criminally liable or effectively deterred because they did not intend to commit the offence in the first place.

The IPC recognizes seven general exceptions to criminal liability. If the accused can prove that their case falls within one of these exceptions, they will not be held accountable for their actions. Insanity and intoxication are two such exceptions, covered by Section 84 and Section 85, respectively. Additionally, Section 86 sheds light on voluntary intoxication and the associated legal liabilities.

Section 84 offers complete protection to individuals who are recognized as legally insane, as they are incapable of comprehending their own actions owing to their mental state. It's crucial to highlight that this safeguard pertains exclusively to those with legal insanity and does not extend to cases of medical insanity. Although seemingly the same thing on the surface level, legal insanity and medical insanity are distinct from each other.

Sections 85 and 86 of the IPC pertain to matters involving intoxication. Section 85 excuses the actions of an individual who became intoxicated against their will or without their knowledge, for instance, if a substance was administered to them unbeknownst to them. It recognises that intoxication may be viewed as a type of self-inflicted insanity for which the person bears responsibility.

However, the inebriated individual is not liable if the drug that caused their drunkenness was forced upon them or provided to them without their permission. On the other hand, circumstances when an individual chooses to get inebriated are covered under Section 86. In these situations, the person is nonetheless responsible for their acts and is not released from culpability.

This legal framework enables a nuanced approach to criminal liability, recognizing that not all actions are equal in culpability and that justice must account for varying degrees of intent and awareness.

Insanity

The use of a distorted state of mind as a defence traces back to ancient times, with one notable example found in the Mahabharata, where Vikarna, the brother of Duryodhana, defended Draupadi when she was wagered in a gambling game by Yudhishthira. Vikarna argued that her stake was invalid because it was made in the heat of gambling frenzy. This historical instance suggests that an unstable mental state was used as a defence to excuse wrongful acts.In England, during the late 13th century, common law courts first recognized complete madness as a defence for criminal offences.

By the 18th century, the definition of madness evolved, and the insanity defence was available to individuals who were deemed of unsound mind and unable to comprehend their actions. Various tests were employed to determine legal insanity, including the Wild Beast test, the Insane Delusion test, and the "test of capacity to distinguish between right and wrong." These tests laid the groundwork for the influential McNaughten rule, which became a cornerstone of insanity defence law.

In India, the insanity defence law, Section 84 IPC, is largely based on the M'Naghten rules. Prior to the standardisation introduced by McNaghten's judgement, attempts were made to establish provisions regarding criminal acts committed by individuals with mental illnesses, but they were largely unsuccessful. The M'Naghten rules remain largely unchanged to this day. However, in 1971, the Law Commission of India attempted to revisit Section 84 in their 42nd report, but no changes were implemented.

Distinction Between Medical Insanity And Legal Insanity

It's crucial to recognize that there exists a differentiation between medical insanity and legal insanity. In case of the former, defence of insanity is not given. A court is concerned with legal insanity, and not with medical insanity. In the landmark case of Surendra Mishra versus State of Jharkhand Supreme Court of India stated that:

"If the accused wants to get relief from all the liability of his acts under section 84 of IPC he has to prove legal insanity, not medical insanity".

Every person who is mentally ill is not ipso facto exempted from criminal responsibility, otherwise people with mental illnesses such as depression , anxiety etc would claim this defence. Any person, who is suffering from any kind of mental illness is called "medical insanity," however "legal insanity" means, person suffering from mental illness should also have a loss of reasoning power.In simple words, legal insanity means, at the time of the commission of the act, the person should be suffering from mental illness and also have a loss of reasoning.

In Great Britain, there has been a recent development where premenstrual syndrome (PMS) has been successfully used as a defence in criminal cases. In India, the Rajasthan High Court acquitted a woman who had been charged with murdering a child, citing insanity triggered by premenstrual syndrome (PMS) as the reason for her actions. The legal landscape in India in this regard is still evolving, but individuals have the right to raise and substantiate such a defence. This new development presents a dual perspective, prompting us to reconsider the legal definition of insanity. The introduction of the PMS defence for women has the potential to be used frivolously.

Intoxication

Intoxication as a legal defence has a long history, dating back to ancient times such as the Romans, although it was often viewed negatively. For instance, Pittacus of Mytilene, one of the seven sages of Greece, proposed a unique legal provision: "that he who committed a crime while drunk would receive a double sentence," one for the crime itself and another for the drunkenness that led to the act.

In English jurisprudence, Sir Edward Coke expressed the view that "He who is willingly intoxicated has no privilege; but what hurts or ills he does, his drunkenness makes it worse." Under common law, both sober and intoxicated offenders faced equal punishment.

"Qui Peccat Ebrius Luat Sobrius"

This Latin maxim means- He who does wrong when drunk must be punished when sober.

In the Indian Penal Code (IPC), a similar approach is followed, punishing voluntary acts of intoxication while distinguishing cases where intoxication occurred without the individual's knowledge, forcibly, or through fraud.

Ethical Considerations
Numerous ethical considerations are intertwined with using intoxication as a legal defence, prompting questions about the extent to which this defence should be granted and whether it aligns with moral principles. The ethical dimensions of providing this defence are complex, particularly in determining its moral rightness or wrongness. It's worth noting that both intoxication and insanity fall under the category of excusable general exceptions rather than justifiable ones.In his influential work, "Rethinking Criminal Law," Professor George Fletcher delved into the concepts of justification and excuse, shedding light on their distinctions and highlighting the challenges in differentiating between them in practical terms.

While justification pertains to the moral correctness of an action, excuse revolves around whether the actor can be held accountable for an admittedly wrongful act. Although both justification and excuse serve as legal defences, excuse does not dispute the wrongfulness of an act; instead, it seeks to evade attributing the act to the individual based on circumstances specific to that person.

The use of intoxication as a legal defence raises numerous ethical and moral dilemmas, with two primary opposing viewpoints at the forefront. These opposing perspectives revolve around the concepts of personal responsibility and genuine mental impairment in cases of voluntary intoxication.On one side of the debate, there are those who argue that allowing intoxication as a defence may erode personal responsibility. They contend that individuals should be held accountable for their actions, even when under the influence, given that they willingly consumed substances that they knew could impair their judgement.

Conversely, proponents of the defence emphasise that it should be invoked only in cases where there is a genuine mental impairment resulting from intoxication. This perspective underscores the idea that individuals should not be convicted when they were genuinely unaware of their actions due to the effects of intoxication.From an ethical standpoint, it is deemed unjust to hold someone accountable for actions they could not control due to their impaired mental state.

Advocates of this view assert that if the law can exonerate an involuntarily intoxicated person from criminal liability under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by citing the absence of mens rea, it should similarly consider the predicament of a voluntarily intoxicated individual. In both scenarios, individuals lose control and have no knowledge of their actions, prompting questions about the fairness of differentiation in legal treatment.

The Future
The Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita Bill, introduced on August 11, 2023, in the Lok Sabha by Home Minister Amit Shah, marks a significant and transformative reform in the Indian Criminal Justice System, poised to replace the Indian Penal Code (IPC). While the new provisions in the bill do not bring substantial changes to sections related to intoxication, a notable modification is observed in the section concerning insanity.

Specifically, the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita bill introduces the defence of "mental illness" instead of "unsoundness of mind." The revised section states that, "Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of mental illness, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law." This shift in wording from "unsoundness of mind" to "mental illness" carries significant implications.

The bill also provides a definition of mental illness under Section 2, Clause 19, which states, "mental illness" means a substantial disorder of thinking, mood, perception, orientation, or memory that grossly impairs judgement, behaviour, capacity to recognize reality, or ability to meet the ordinary demands of life, including mental conditions associated with the abuse of alcohol and drugs. However, it does not include mental retardation, which is a condition of arrested or incomplete development of the mind of a person, specially characterised by subnormality of intelligence (as per the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017).

According to this definition, incomplete cognitive development does not qualify as a mental illness, which means that individuals in this category may not benefit from this defense, unlike the previous IPC definition of "unsoundness of mind," which explicitly included individuals such as "idiots" (those insane since birth). This change in terminology in the new bill, which is likely to be passed, could have significant implications for the future of the insanity defence in India.Some of the future implications could be : -

• The use of "mental illness" instead of "unsoundness of mind" could potentially broaden the application of the insanity defence.
• The change in terminology may lead to legal challenges and debates about the scope and definition of "mental illness" in specific cases.
• To determine whether an individual meets the criteria for "mental illness," there may be an increased reliance on expert psychiatric testimony in court cases.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the legal exceptions of insanity and intoxication under Sections 84 to 86 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) are complex and ethically charged aspects of criminal law. These exceptions acknowledge that not all actions are equal in culpability and strive to strike a balance between personal responsibility and genuine mental impairment.