When Justice Demands Clarity: High Court mandates Reasoning in Mental Health Pleas

In a significant ruling concerning the rights of the accused to a fair trial, the Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) has affirmed that trial courts cannot bypass specific legal procedures when an accused raises a claim of mental unsoundness. Justice Anil Kumar Upman, presiding over the case of Amit Rathor vs. State of Rajasthan , held that a trial court must issue a reasoned, "speaking" order regarding an accused’s mental capacity under Section 368 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS) before allowing a trial to move forward.

The Conflict: A Question of Fitness to Stand Trial

The petitioner, Amit Rathor, faced charges under Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Arms Act. His counsel argued that the petitioner has been suffering from Bipolar Affective Disorder (BPAD) since 2019.

The core of the dispute began in August 2025, when the petitioner filed an application under Section 368 of the BNSS, asserting he was medically unfit to defend himself. While the trial court ordered medical examinations, it subsequently ignored the formal application and relied on a Medical Board’s report dated October 30, 2025, to resume the trial. The petitioner contended that the trial court failed to provide a reasoned order on the Section 368 application, essentially denying him his right to a determination of his own legal competency.

The Arguments: Balancing Evidence and Procedure

Counsel for the petitioner argued that: * The trial court treated the medical report as a blanket justification to ignore the procedural mandate of Section 368 BNSS. * The court lacked independent judicial satisfaction, merely reproducing medical findings without analyzing whether the accused had the cognitive ability to understand proceedings or instruct counsel. * Proceeding with a trial against a person suffering from a serious psychiatric ailment without proper inquiry violates the principles of natural justice and Article 21 of the Constitution.

The State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, opposed the petition, seeking its dismissal.

Legal Analysis: The Mandatory Nature of Inquiry

The High Court drew heavy inspiration from the precedent set in the Kerala High Court case of Babu Valleriyan vs. State of Kerala . In that case, it was established that ignoring medical evidence of unsoundness without first determining the accused's capacity is an illegal act.

Justice Upman emphasized that Section 368 of the BNSS is not a mere formality but a mandatory shield for the accused. The trial judge's failure to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the petitioner's mental state—instead opting to simply proceed with the trial—constituted an "arbitrary" departure from established legal safeguards.

Key Observations

The Court’s ruling underscored the necessity for judicial rigor in such matters:

> "The learned trial Court ought to have decided the application filed by the petitioner under Section 368 of BNSS."

> "The procedure adopted by the learned Sessions Judge is illegal and in gross violation of the provisions of the Code."

> "The learned Sessions Judge ought to have, in the first instance, tried the fact of such unsoundness and incapacity and he ought to have proceeded with the trial only if he was satisfied that the accused is of sound mind and is capable of making his defence."

The Verdict: A Compelling Directive

The Rajasthan High Court allowed the petition, directing the trial court to immediately pause the proceedings to issue a comprehensive, reasoned order regarding the Section 368 application.

This decision reinforces a crucial principle: regardless of the prosecution's momentum, a court cannot bypass the duty to verify an accused's mental competency. By mandating a "speaking order," the High Court has ensured that the trial court must explicitly account for the medical findings and the accused’s capacity, protecting the fundamental right to defend oneself in a court of law. For future cases, this serves as a stern reminder that procedural justice remains the bedrock upon which the trial process stands.