Kochi, August 8, 2025
Stressing the critical importance of ensuring a fair trial, the Kerala High Court has ruled that a judicial inquiry must be freshly conducted before resuming trial proceedings against an accused who was previously found mentally unfit to stand trial.
The Court held that a mere medical certificate is not sufficient ground to restart criminal proceedings unless the trial court, after due judicial examination, independently confirms that the accused is now mentally capable of defending himself.
The case concerns a man accused of murdering his wife, who was previously diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and was declared unfit to participate in his trial under Section 329 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Following treatment, a medical board later issued a certificate stating that the accused was now fit to face trial. Based on that, the trial court resumed proceedings and even framed charges.
However, the High Court found this to be a procedural lapse, observing that the trial court failed to hold a judicial inquiry—as required under law—before accepting the medical opinion and proceeding with the case.
In a detailed judgment, Justice G. Girish clarified that:
• When an accused is previously declared mentally ill and unfit to stand trial, the trial must not resume based only on a fresh medical report.
• A fresh judicial inquiry is mandatory, under Sections 328 to 331 of CrPC, to evaluate the current mental state of the accused.
• The medical officer must be presented in court and subjected to cross-examination, ensuring that the court forms an independent opinion before concluding the accused is competent to stand trial.
• The principles of natural justice and due process require that such an assessment go beyond paperwork and must involve court scrutiny.
This ruling reinforces the idea that trial courts cannot outsource legal responsibility to medical professionals alone. The Court must satisfy itself that the accused understands the nature of the charges, can follow proceedings, and assist in his own defense.
It is also significant for its alignment with the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, which seeks to protect the rights and dignity of individuals with mental illnesses, particularly those facing criminal charges.
