AKHTAR&JAGAWAT be known as Mc'Naughten Rule (Modi, 1969). Ac­ cording to this rule, in order to establish innocence on the ground of insanity it must be clearly proved that at the time of committing the crime the accused was laboring under such defect of reason from dis­ order of mind as to not to know the nature or quality of the act that he was doing, or that he did not know it was wrong and contrary to the law. DEVELOPMENT IN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND SCOTLAND The most important criticism of the Mc'­ Naughten Rule is that it rests on an entirely obsolete and misleading concept of nature of insanity. In­ sanity does not only or primarily affects the cogni­ tive or intellectual faculties but also affects the whole personality including both the will and emo­ tions (Marfatia, 1972). A person who developed hypoglycemia and committed assault on others, in one of the cases in Scotland (Camishe vs Boyle, 1985), it was held that in absence of insanity he could not be acquitted on the ground that he lacked 'mens rea' owing to hypoglycemia (Blueglass, 1991). In another case, R vs Kemp, the accused made a mo­ tiveless attack on his wife. He was charged with the attempt to murder. Medical evidence showed that he had cerebral arteriosclerosis and suffered from tran­ sient lapse of consciousness. The judge commented that plea of insanity could not be established as it could not be proved that the brain had been affected in anyway (Hogan & Smith, 1978). The case of Suvillian vs Suvillian (1980) is a leading modem case on the defense of insanity. The defendant kicked the head of his friend while under­ going a seizure in post ictal stage. The medical evidence was that seizures are rarely associated with such type of behavior and the subjects may be un­ aware of what had happened. The ruling of the judge was that the defense open to him was insanity and he should plead guilty. Lord Dopock (Blueglass, 1991) commented on this case "....it matters not whether the etiology of impairment was organic as in epilepsy, or functional or whether the impairment itself is permanent, transient or intermittent, provided that it subsisted at the time of commission of the act" It has been argued that the Mc'Naughten Rule must be replaced by more practical rules based on experience and therefore the Law Commission in the United Kingdom have prepared a draft bill which will replace the verdict NGBRI to "not guilty by evidence of mental disorder" (Law Commission, 26 1985) and this verdict will be given if it is proved that at the time of comm ission of the act, the accused, on the balance of probabilities, was suffering from a mental disorder. An act in the state of automatism by reason of mental disorder or combined effect of mental disorder and intoxication will be brought under the purview if this verdict. If the reform is passed, a defendant like Suvillian will no longer be required to plead guilty. DEVELOPMENT IN THE U.SJV. Mc'Naughten Rule became the prevailing rule in the U.S.A., even though the formulation was criticized. Over the past 150 years, different legal formulations have been adopted by different states of the U.S.A., eg. "Irresistible Impulse Test" and Durham's formulation of "product of mental ill­ ness". The irresistible impulse test excuses the ac­ cused if it is proved that he had a mental condition that prevented him from exercising control over his conduct even though he could intellectually under­ stand the difference between right and wrong. The Durham's decision acquits the accused if it is shown that the act was the product of mental illness. If it is so, sociopathy and other personality disorders may be considered' product of mental illness' and the law assumes that such a disorder may impair behavior control. But this view is not generally held by psychiatrists who believe that persons with antiso­ cial personality should be held responsible for their behavior. The alternative formulation for insanity defense is the ALI (American Law Institute) Test: "A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such a conduct as a result of mental disorder or defect he lacks substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality (wrongfulness) of his conduct or con­ form his conduct to the requirement of law". The essential improvement over the Mc'Naughten Rule is the use of the word 'appreciate' rather than' know' to include the emotional and intellectual capacities for a 'conforming conduct' to the requirement of law (Boomrang, 1979). New reforms are taking place in different states of the U.S.A. after the public outcry over the release of Hinckley Jr., who had tried to assassinate Presi­ dent Reagan. Public opinion is building to remove the plea of insanity altogether, although Montana and Idaho states have abolished the insanity defense much earlier (Amelia, 1982). It however does not mean that the insanity defense has been completely done away with. The defense open is 'mens rea* that