Supreme Court Rulings On Forensic Psychology In Trials

1. Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996)

Key Issue: Mental health and right to life under Article 21

Background: The case mainly dealt with right to life, but the Court acknowledged the importance of psychiatric evaluations in cases involving mental health.

Ruling: The Court held that mental illness impacts an individual's rights and that courts must consider expert psychological assessments before deciding on criminal liability.

Impact: Established the foundation for considering forensic psychological evaluations in determining a defendant’s mental capacity.

2. Mohan v. State of Maharashtra (1996)

Key Issue: Insanity defense and psychiatric evidence

Background: The accused claimed insanity as a defense for committing murder.

Ruling: The Court accepted psychiatric expert testimony as critical in assessing criminal responsibility. It held that mental illness can exempt criminal liability if the accused lacked the capacity to understand the nature of the act.

Impact: Affirmed the role of forensic psychology in the insanity defense.

3. State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (2006)

Key Issue: Credibility and reliability of psychological evidence

Background: The accused challenged conviction based on expert psychiatric reports.

Ruling: The Court emphasized that forensic psychological reports must be thorough, based on sound scientific methods, and corroborated with other evidence. Courts should not rely blindly on psychological assessments alone.

Impact: Set standards for admissibility and weight of forensic psychological evidence.

4. Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010)

Key Issue: Voluntariness and admissibility of narco-analysis and brain mapping tests

Background: The Court examined the constitutionality of involuntary scientific tests related to forensic psychology.

Ruling: The Court ruled that involuntary narco-analysis, polygraph, and brain mapping tests violate Article 20(3) and Article 21, making them inadmissible unless voluntarily consented.

Impact: Established constitutional safeguards on forensic psychological testing methods.

5. Arun Kumar v. State of Haryana (2014)

Key Issue: Competence and expertise of forensic psychologists

Background: The Court considered the qualifications and procedures followed by forensic psychologists presenting evidence.

Ruling: The Supreme Court emphasized the need for qualified forensic experts following standardized procedures to ensure reliability.

Impact: Raised the bar for forensic psychology practice in trials.

Summary:

CaseForensic Psychology AspectKey Principle
Gian Kaur (1996)Mental health & rightsExpert psychological assessment is essential
Mohan (1996)Insanity defensePsychiatric evidence critical for insanity plea
Kashi Ram (2006)Reliability of psychological evidenceForensic reports must be scientifically sound
Selvi (2010)Involuntary psychological testsNo forced narco/polygraph tests without consent
Arun Kumar (2014)Expert qualificationsQualified forensic psychologists required

These cases collectively shape the role and limits of forensic psychology in criminal trials, balancing scientific input with constitutional rights.

LEAVE A COMMENT

0 comments