A low IQ or an intellectual disability, by itself, cannot be treated as proof that an accused is incapable of standing trial, the Kerala High Court has ruled.
Justice Jobin Sebastian held that the test under Section 368 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) is not simply whether an accused has an intellectual disability. The court must instead determine whether the person’s mental condition actually prevents them from understanding the proceedings and participating in their defence.
The ruling came in a revision petition filed by a 20-year-old accused, referred to as Raj, who is facing proceedings before a special court in Punalur under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
Raj had sought postponement of the trial, claiming that his intellectual disability left him unable to defend himself. A trial court conducted an inquiry and concluded that he was competent to face the proceedings.
Challenging that decision before the High Court, Raj relied on medical records showing an IQ score of 35 and an assessment placing his social age at around 10 years. His side also highlighted developmental difficulties dating back to childhood and the assistance he had required during his education, including the use of a scribe in examinations.
The High Court, however, noted that the medical board which examined Raj had reached a different conclusion on his ability to participate in the case.
According to the medical assessment, Raj was able to understand the allegations against him, grasp the nature of the court proceedings and respond to questions put to him.
The Court therefore found no reason to interfere with the trial court’s conclusion that he was fit to stand trial.
Justice Sebastian stressed that Section 368 requires an assessment of the accused’s actual functional ability. The relevant questions include whether the person understands what the proceedings are about, can comprehend questions put to them and is capable of communicating relevant information and instructions to their lawyer.
The Court cautioned against treating an intellectual disability diagnosis or a low IQ score as an automatic bar to criminal proceedings.
The focus, it said, must remain on how the condition affects the accused’s ability to understand and participate in the case.
Holding that Raj was capable of taking part in the proceedings, the High Court dismissed his revision petition and upheld the trial court’s finding that he was fit to stand trial.