Low IQ or intellectual disability doesn't make accused unfit to stand trial: Kerala High Court

In a significant ruling that clarifies the scope of Section 368 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the Kerala High Court has held that a low IQ or intellectual disability, without more, does not render an accused incapable of standing trial. The court dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by a 20-year-old POCSO accused who argued that his intellectual disability made him unfit to participate in his defence.

Justice Jobin Sebastian, presiding over the single bench, upheld the trial court’s finding that the accused, Kamal Raj, possessed the functional capacity to understand the proceedings and communicate with his counsel. The decision reinforces that the key determinant under the BNSS is not the mere presence of a disability, but whether that disability actually prevents the accused from entering upon his defence.

Background of the Case

Kamal Raj was the sole accused in S.C. No. 314 of 2025 pending before the Fast Track Special Court (POCSO Act Cases) at Punalur. During the trial, he contended that he suffered from intellectual disability and was consequently incapable of making his defence. Relying on Section 368 of the BNSS, he sought postponement of the proceedings.

The trial court conducted a detailed enquiry as mandated by the provision and referred the accused to medical experts. The initial evaluation by a psychiatrist at the District Hospital, Kollam, found Raj fit to stand trial, noting that he could understand the nature of court proceedings and communicate with his advocate. Aggrieved, Raj appealed to a Medical Board constituted under Section 368(2). The Board, after admitting him for comprehensive evaluation at the Government Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram, confirmed that despite his intellectual disability (IQ measured at 35), Raj was able to understand the allegations against him, answer questions coherently, and provide instructions to his lawyer.

Dissatisfied, Raj moved the High Court challenging the trial court’s order.

Arguments by the Petitioner

Counsel for Raj argued that the trial court had not properly appreciated the medical evidence. They highlighted that the Medical Board’s own report noted a lifelong developmental impairment, significant deficits in adaptive functioning, and a social age of only ten years. Despite these findings, the Board opined that Raj was fit to stand trial. This inconsistency, they contended, vitiated the trial court’s decision. They further pointed to the Board’s factual findings of academic and social difficulties, including the use of a scribe in examinations, as indicative of his inability to defend himself.

The State’s Response

The Public Prosecutor supported the trial court’s order, submitting that the medical reports clearly established that Raj could understand the proceedings and participate meaningfully in his defence. The mere existence of a low IQ or intellectual disability, it was argued, is not enough to declare an accused unfit for trial.

Court’s Analysis

Justice Sebastian examined the statutory scheme of Section 368 BNSS, noting that the provision is not concerned solely with the presence of a mental condition but with its impact on the accused’s ability to enter upon a defence. The decisive question, the court observed, is whether the disability renders the accused “incapable of understanding the nature and substance of the proceedings, comprehend the accusation against him and meaningfully participate in his defence.”

The court further clarified that a low IQ or intellectual disability alone does not automatically disqualify a person from standing trial. “If the mere existence of intellectual disability or a low IQ were sufficient to render an accused incapable of standing trial, every person suffering from such disability would, irrespective of the degree of functional capacity possessed by him, be excluded from criminal proceedings,” the judgment stated.

In this case, the Medical Board’s report expressly recorded that Raj could understand the allegations, comprehend questions, provide relevant answers, and communicate with his legal counsel. The Board also noted that Raj demonstrated awareness that his statements could be used in court.

The High Court found that the trial judge had properly considered the medical evidence and applied the correct legal test. “The learned trial Judge conducted the enquiry in accordance with the procedure contemplated under Section 368 of the BNSS and arrived at the finding on the basis of the medical opinion obtained pursuant to the statutory enquiry,” the court observed.

Key Observations

Justice Sebastian underscored several critical points:

  • “The governing consideration under Section 368 of the BNSS is not merely whether the accused has a low IQ, intellectual disability, poor academic performance or a lower social age. The decisive question is whether the mental condition or disability of the accused is of such a nature as to render him incapable of entering upon his defence.”

  • “The mere presence of an intellectual disability or a low IQ, by itself, will not make a person incapacitated to stand trial.”

  • “Therefore, the existence of an intellectual disability has to be considered in the context of the actual functional capacity of the accused to understand and participate in the proceedings.”

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed the revision petition, affirming the trial court’s order that Kamal Raj is fit to stand trial. The court found no merit in the challenge and held that the findings were based on proper appreciation of the medical evidence. The ruling sets an important precedent for how courts should evaluate claims of incapacity under Section 368 BNSS, emphasizing functional capability over raw test scores. For legal practitioners and accused persons alike, the judgment clarifies that intellectual disability alone is not a bar to accountability; it is the capacity to understand and participate that determines fitness for trial.