THE EVOLUTION OF LEGAL INSANITY: FROM M’NAGHTEN RULES TO SECTION 84 PPC

Abstract

This article studies the clash between old 19th-century laws and modern psychiatric reality in Pakistan’s criminal justice system. The main thesis argues that Section 84 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) has become an archaic relic, relying on a rigid all-or-nothing cognitive test that ignores the complexities of the human brain. By focusing strictly on whether an accused knew their act was wrong, the law fails to account for volitional impairments where a person understands the law but is biologically unable to control their actions. The study utilizes a qualitative methodology, deconstructing the historical M’Naghten Rules and analyzing Pakistani jurisprudence to reveal a long-standing "tradition of skepticism" toward mental illness. Through an analysis of cases like Muhammad Iqbal vs. The State, which first grappled with the identification of schizophrenia, and Abdullah v. The State, which established a nearly impossible evidentiary burden, the paper illustrates a history of judicial denialism. This reached a peak in the Imdad Ali case, where the court initially dismissed schizophrenia as a recoverable disease to avoid granting a medical excuse. The objective is to advocate for a transition into the Safia Bano era—a move toward reformative justice that integrates mandatory medical assessments and recognizes the continuum of mental health.