The idea of responsibility is connected to our deepest beliefs about human nature, dignity, and the feeling of guilt, innocence, blame, and punishment in daily life. In criminal cases, insanity defence is frequently employed. It is predicated on the idea that the defendant was suffering from a severe mental condition at the time of the crime and was unable to understand the nature of the offence and distinguish between right and wrong behaviour as a result, rendering them not legally responsible for the crime. The concept of insanity defence is one of law, not of medicine. This reflects that merely having a mental condition does not constitute as insanity. Like a civil case, the defendant must establish the defence of insanity by a "preponderance of the evidence". The fundamental rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution and basic human rights are violated when someone who did not commit the act is punished. Invoking the idea of natural justice, it also invokes the due process of law if the defendant is unable to defend himself in court. Legal insanity is touch task to define, and it is even more tougher to adequately argue against it in court of law. The recent Supreme Court ruling on the insanity defence and the legal norms followed in Indian courts are the main topics of this essay. Researchers outline a methodology for assessing a defendant's mental status examination and briefly go over the legal requirements and processes for reviewing evaluations of the insanity defence. The "act of a person of unsound mind" and the insanity defence are covered under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in that country. Professionals in the fields of medicine, psychology, and law are deeply divided over this issue.