The Kerala High Court has held that the mere presence of intellectual disability or a low IQ does not, by itself, make an accused incapable of defending himself or unfit to stand trial. The Court said the crucial consideration is whether the accused can understand the proceedings, comprehend the allegations and communicate effectively with his lawyer.
Justice Jobin Sebastian delivered the order on September 29, 2026, while considering a criminal revision petition challenging an order of the Fast Track Special Court, Punalur.
Background
The accused, who is facing proceedings before the Fast Track Special Court under the POCSO Act, had claimed that he suffered from intellectual disability and was therefore unable to make his defence. He relied upon medical assessments concerning his intellectual and adaptive functioning and sought postponement of the proceedings under Section 368 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
The trial court conducted an enquiry under Section 368 of the BNSS and concluded that the accused was fit to stand trial. The accused challenged that finding before the High Court.
The record contained assessments by a psychiatrist as well as a Medical Board. The Medical Board noted developmental difficulties from childhood, academic and adaptive difficulties and an IQ assessment of 35. However, during its evaluation, the Board found that the accused could understand the allegations, answer questions coherently and communicate relevant information to his advocate.
The psychiatrist had similarly reported that the accused could understand the nature and purpose of the court proceedings, understand the charges and communicate effectively with his advocate.
The High Court explained that Section 368 of the BNSS requires the Court to examine the actual capacity of an accused to participate in his defence, rather than relying solely on an IQ score or the existence of an intellectual disability.
The Court observed:
“The governing consideration under Section 368 of the BNSS is not merely whether the accused has a low IQ, intellectual disability, poor academic performance or a lower social age. The decisive question is whether the mental condition or disability of the accused is of such a nature as to render him incapable of entering upon his defence.”
The Court further noted that the relevant factors include the ability to understand the proceedings and accusation, comprehend questions, give relevant answers and communicate necessary facts and instructions to the advocate.
The High Court found that the trial court had conducted the required enquiry and properly considered the medical evidence. The Medical Board’s findings showed that the accused possessed the functional capacity required to understand the proceedings and participate in his defence.
The Court therefore found no reason to interfere with the trial court’s conclusion that the accused was fit to stand trial.
The criminal revision petition was accordingly dismissed.
