The Kerala High Court has adjourned the trial of a 74-year-old accused with Alzheimer's Dementia, ruling that dementia qualifies as an intellectual disability. This classification grants the accused certain protections under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the Bharatiya Nagarik Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS) 2023.

The court also specified that these protections extend retroactively to ongoing cases.

The court, presided over by Justice K. Babu, observed that the accused is unable to defend himself due to advanced dementia.

The court noted that “a person suffering from ‘Alzheimer’s Dementia’, which is of such a degree that renders him incapable of making his defence, is entitled to the protection contained in Chapter XXV of the Code and Chapter XXVII of the Sanhita.”

The case involved a petitioner accused of offenses under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. During the investigation, the petitioner was diagnosed with Alzheimer's dementia by a neurologist at Palakkad District Hospital. The defense argued that the progression of the disease rendered the petitioner incapable of defending himself, prompting his counsel to file an application under Section 329 of the CrPC. It was further argued that the petitioner, unable to provide instructions to his counsel, was entitled to protections under Chapter XXV of the CrPC.

The trial court initially denied the plea, determining that the accused appeared mentally sound after a brief interaction. However, the defense insisted on a more thorough medical evaluation. Following this, the court instructed the District Hospital in Thrissur to assess the petitioner’s mental health.

A subsequent report from the Neurology Department of the Medical College in Thrissur confirmed that the petitioner was suffering from severe, progressive, and irreversible dementia. The report also recommended a comprehensive psychiatric evaluation.

The petitioner’s counsel, Advocate T. Kabil Chandran, contended that Alzheimer's dementia qualifies as “unsound mind” under the CrPC, citing Sections 329 of the CrPC and 105 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017. He argued that the court was required to assess the petitioner’s mental soundness before continuing with the trial.

Amici Curiae, Advocates V. Ramkumar Nambiar and Renjith B. Marar, supported the defense by arguing that the progression of Alzheimer’s significantly impairs cognitive functions, categorizing it as an intellectual disability. They stressed that both the CrPC and BNSS require appropriate legal protections for individuals with such conditions to prevent prejudice during judicial proceedings.

The respondent, however, argued that the existing legal framework does not explicitly recognize Alzheimer's as a mental illness warranting procedural safeguards.

Upon reviewing the arguments, the court observed that Alzheimer's dementia, affecting memory, cognition, and behavior, falls within the scope of intellectual disability as defined under Section 368 of the BNSS. The court noted that the BNSS provides broader protections for individuals with intellectual disabilities, including those with progressive conditions like Alzheimer’s. The court acknowledged that the statutory framework of the CrPC and BNSS is intended to ensure a fair trial, especially for individuals unable to comprehend or defend against charges due to mental incapacities.

“Chapter XXVII of the Sanhita (BNSS) has given wider protection to a person of unsound mind or a person suffering from intellectual disability. Where two persons suffering from a mental disability or intellectual disability are dealt with differently, one under the Code, and the other under the Sanhita, it amounts to a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Among equals, the law should be equal and equally administered and should be treated alike. The guarantee of ‘equal protection’ under Article 14 is a guarantee of equal treatment of persons in ‘equal circumstances’. To preserve the fundamental right of an individual, the provisions of the Sanhita can be extended retrospectively to any proceedings initiated prior to 1.7.2024. The saving provision under Section 531 of the Sanhita shall not deter the enforcement of the fundamental right of an accused,” stated the court.

The court further ruled that the provisions of the BNSS, which were enacted after the trial commenced, could be applied retrospectively. This decision is based on the principle that procedural amendments generally have retroactive effect.

 In denying these protections to the accused, the court held, “It is the right of the accused to have a fair trial as provided under Article 21 of the Constitution, which is sacrosanct of criminal jurisprudence. Therefore, if the provisions of the Sanhita are not extended retrospectively in cases where the accused person is affected by any intellectual disability of such a degree that renders him incapable of making his defence, there would be a failure of fair trial.”

Consequently, the court set aside the lower court’s directive and postponed the trial. It instructed the trial court to reassess the petitioner’s mental incapacity in accordance with the relevant provisions of the BNSS and CrPC. The court concluded by expressing appreciation for the assistance provided by the Amici Curiae in reaching its decision.