ABSTRACT
This chapter recommends that the words mental impairment be used rather than unsoundness of mind in a revised Indian Penal Code (IPC). Macaulays draft Code was clear, concise, and comprehensive, rationally organised and made use of unique legislative techniques such as Explanations and Illustrations to enhance clarity. The MNaghten Rules were fashioned with a clear intent to limit the scope and application of the insanity defence. The Rules did not recognise volitional impairment and narrowed the forms of cognitive impairment that constituted legal insanity. The Indian Law Commissioners who examined and reported in detail on Macaulays Code in 1846 and 1847 were apparently satisfied with his provision on the defence of madness and made no recommendations for change. The IPC does not contain an express provision declaring that voluntary conduct is a fundamental prerequisite of criminal liability. Nor does the IPC deal with automatism as a subset of involuntariness.
