Unsoundness of Mind

To form a Contract both the parties to a Contract should be eligible to enter into a contract. Certain essential elements should be considered to form a valid contract. The requirements like the Party to a Contract shouldn’t be minor, there should be free consent nothing should be forced, and the object on which the contract is based shouldn’t be illegal. One of the essentials is that the party forming a contract shouldn’t be of unsound mind.

CLAT 2025: 10 Free Mock Tests | Legal Maxims | Landmark Judgements | PYQs

CUET BA LLB 2025:  Legal Studies ebook | 5 Free Mock Tests

MH CET LAW 2025: 10 Free Mock Tests | Legal Reasoning Practice Questions

Monthly Legal Current Affairs:  August’24 | July’24 | June’24

This Story also Contains

1. What is a Sound Mind?
2. Meaning of Unsoundness of Mind
3. Views on Unsoundness of Mind
4. Reasons for Unsoundness of Mind
5. Undsoundess of Mind under IPC
6. The onus to Prove Unsoundness of Mind
7. Unsoundness of Mind as a Ground for Divorce
8. Section 84 of Unsoundness of Mind
9. Unsoundness of Mind Case Laws
10. Conclusion

What is a Sound Mind?

"A person is said to be of sound mind to make a contract if, at the time when he makes it, he is capable of understanding it and forming a rational judgment as to its effects upon his interests," states Section 12 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Hence, a person who is of sound mind is eligible to enter into a contract as that person is eligible to take decisions by himself and in the case of a Sound mind no other person can influence him or force him to make decisions or enter into a Contract.

Meaning of Unsoundness of Mind

A person who lacks the mental capacity to think or comprehend the consequences of their actions is considered to be of unsound mind, as defined under the Indian Contract Act of 1872. A party who is of sound mind may elect to void an agreement executed by someone who is not, per Section 12 of the Act. To make an agreement voidable, it must be proven that the mentally incapable person was unable to understand the terms and consequences of the agreement at the time it was made.

This provision prevents contracts from being used to exploit individuals with mental illnesses. A contract that a mentally incompetent person signs is deemed void, even when neither party stands to benefit from it. A mad person's property is always responsible.

Views on Unsoundness of Mind

English View on Unsoundness of Mind

Three categories apply to mental disability under English law: First, section 4 of the Mental Health Act of 1983 applies to persons whose mental health is so bad that the court has jurisdiction over their matters. Any alleged contracts created by the individual will not be enforced against them, as the court effectively assumes the individual's capacity to establish contracts.

Second, there are people whose mental health is so compromised that they are unable to understand the nature of the transaction they are performing, even if they are not under the court's jurisdiction. Until it can be demonstrated that the other party knew of the incapacity, contracts entered into by persons in such circumstances are enforceable against them.

Thirdly, groups are made up of individuals who are competent to comprehend the transaction but are more likely to enter into a disadvantageous contract due to a mental illness. These individuals' contracts are regarded as legally binding unless they violate the prohibition against undue influence.

A person of unsound mind is therefore competent to contract under English law, however, he may escape one if he can convince the judge that he was incapable of understanding the terms of the agreement and that the other party was aware of this. He can choose to have the contract voided at that point. If he attests to it, then it becomes legally binding against him.

Indian View on Unsoundness of Mind

There are differences between the laws of England and India. However, in India, an agreement made by a minor is considered to be that of a person of unsound mind.. Furthermore, a mentally ill person may sign a contract when he or she is well. However, the Indian Contract Act of 1872 prohibits a person who is generally of sound mind from entering into a contract if he is not

Furthermore, in India, a person who is inebriated and unable to contract is responsible for the essentials that are provided to them. Similar procedures would apply to agreements made while under the influence of other substances.

It is often fairly evident that the issues of unsoundness of mind under English and Indian contract law are similar, with a few noteworthy deviations. However, in English law, unsoundness is not a concept; rather, it is a subset of the inability to contract, which includes connected parties such as public corporations and minorities. But in the Indian context, being unsound is limited to old age, inebriation, mental illness, and stupidity.

Reasons for Unsoundness of Mind

Lunatics

A lunatic is someone who has become mentally unstable due to mental stress or other traumatic experiences in the past. He experiences periods of both sanity and insanity. When he is of sound mind, he can enter into contracts, and such agreements will be enforceable. A contract that he enters while mentally incompetent will be null and invalid.

Idiots

A person who has lost their ability to think clearly and comprehend things is called an idiot. He has little comprehension of the common, everyday issues that affect everyone. While lunacy is a periodic insanity with periods of lucidity, idiocy is a constant inability. An idiot's agreement is null and void and is treated the same as that of a minor.

Drunken or intoxicated persons

When someone uses drugs or alcohol, their ability to contract is momentarily compromised. For example, when the individual reaches a point when he is too drunk to make any sensible decisions, he loses the ability to understand the transaction. A drunken person's stance is void, just as that of a lunatic, when they are not in their right frame of mind.

Burden of Proof

Assuming that the person alleging something is not mentally ill, it is their responsibility to provide evidence to support their claim. The heavy-duty remains even if it can only be proven that the person did not show any symptoms of insanity at the time the contract was made.

Hypnotism

When in artificially induced sleep, a person in hypnosis suffers a brief loss of consciousness. Therefore, when someone is hypnotized, it is deemed that they are of unsound mind.

Difference Between Insanity and Unsoundness of Mind

In legal terminology, the phrases "unsound mind" and "insanity" are frequently used interchangeably; nonetheless, the Supreme Court has said that insanity is a term that covers varied degrees of mental disease and has no specific meaning. In the Indian Penal Code, "unsoundness of mind" refers to insanity.

Undsoundess of Mind under IPC

Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 deals with Unsoundness of Mind. It says that Anything done by someone who, at the time of the act, is unable to comprehend the nature of the conduct or that he is doing what is either illegal or against the law, due to mental illness, is not considered an offence. One of the general defences allowed by the IPC is the defence of insanity, which is provided for in Section 84 of the IPC.

In what is referred to as the M'Naghten case, the House of Lords established the legal basis for the concept of insanity in 1843. Section 84 of the IPC does not utilize the word "insanity." It makes use of the phrase "unsoundness of mind," which the Code does not define. Nonetheless, the term "unsoundness of mind" has been equated with "insanity" by Indian courts.

An accused person must demonstrate that, due to mental illness, he was unable to understand the nature of the act or that it was illegal to be granted protection under Section 84 of the IPC.

In the case of Rattan Lal v. State of MP (2002)

In this case, it was held that the moment the crime is committed is the critical point at which the accused should be found to be mentally ill. Whether the accused was in a condition that qualified them for Section 84 benefits depends only on the circumstances leading up to, including the aftermath of, the crime.

The onus to Prove Unsoundness of Mind

The burden of establishing that an individual's mental condition is abnormal always rests with the person making the allegation.

In Jyotindra Bhattacharjee V. Mrs Sona Bala Bora

The suit property was sold by the late Bora, a Hindu who was the sole owner and was subject to Dayabhaga School rules. The sale document and the mutation order gave the appellant possession of the property. The sale was opposed and contested by Bora's wife, children, and daughters. The respondent asserted, among other things, that the late Bora was not of sound mind to finish the selling transaction.

The Gauhati High Court ruled that the respondents were unable to demonstrate that the deceased Bora was not a regular person, holding that the burden of proof was always with the individual alleging such a state of mind. The court determined that late Bora was not abnormal just because he filed a lawsuit against his wife and kids, got into arguments with the family, moved out of the house for an extended length of time, and sold the entire estate, leaving the family members without a place to live. Furthermore, the respondents' claim that the late Bora was mentally incompetent was not supported by any documentation demonstrating that he had ever undergone a medical examination.

Unsoundness of Mind as a Ground for Divorce

• Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act: This provision specifies that if one spouse is incurably mentally ill for at least three years, it can constitute grounds for divorce.
• Other reasons for divorce: Other grounds for divorce include the respondent having a mental illness that prevents the petitioner from living with them.

Section 84 of Unsoundness of Mind

Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) is a general defence to criminal charges that addresses the insanity defence. It provides that an act is not deemed a crime if the perpetrator was unable to appreciate the nature of their conduct or that they were breaking the law owing to mental incapacity.

Unsoundness of Mind Case Laws

In the case of Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker v. State of Gujarat

Facts of the case: In this case, It was alleged that the appellant killed his spouse. The Sessions Judge dismissed the appellant's claim of insanity under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and found him guilty under Section 302 of the same code. The conviction was upheld by the High Court after an appeal. The appellant argued that the prosecution had not proven the case beyond a reasonable doubt since the accused had raised doubts about one of the elements' criminal purpose and that the High Court should have determined that the accused had met his burden of proof.

Findings by the Court: After reviewing the evidence and witness accounts, the Supreme Court determined that there was insufficient evidence to prove the accused's insanity or even to raise a reasonable doubt about the possibility that the offence was done when the accused was insane. The burden of proof that must be met by the prosecution and defence was likewise established by the Supreme Court. The unique duty placed on the accused to establish his claim of insanity does not conflict with the prosecution's ordinary burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which is always on them and never changes. The defence may prove their eligibility for the exemption under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and bears the same burden of proof as a party in a civil proceeding. The accused must provide evidence to the court in order for it to determine that the circumstances in issue existed or were so likely to do so that a wise man would be justified in acting on the premise that they did. At the crime scene, it is critical to evaluate the accused's mental condition. It is only possible to determine if the accused was in a mental condition that qualified them for protection under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 by looking at the events preceding up to, including, and including the offence. The evidence presented may cast reasonable doubt on the prosecution's case in the court's view, allowing the accused to be released even if the accused was unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was mad at the time of the offence.

In the case of Bajanti v. State

The accused had been experiencing stomach pains and tuberculosis for a while. One day, she and her baby jumped into a well; the child perished but the accused woman survived. She claimed insanity when faced with a § 302 prosecution, but the court rejected her claim because she was not suffering from any mental illness at the time of the offence. Nonetheless, it was claimed that she carried out the deed knowing that it would probably result in death. Her conviction for the crime of culpable homicide not amounting to murder was therefore changed from one under section 302 to one under section 304.

Conclusion

A state of mind that renders a contract voidable is called unsoundness of mind. A valid and binding contract requires both contracting parties to be able to make reasonable decisions and to be aware of the repercussions of the transactions they are embarking on. To be competent to enter into a contract, a person must be of sound mind. A mentally unsound person is unable to reason and may be mentally disabled either temporarily or permanently.