functions of consciousness, thinking, mood, cognition and with impairment of judgment and insight cannot be treated at par with a normal criminal. 20. He apprised the Court that there are more than 160 recognized psychiatric disorders. Some of those disorders are Severe Mental Illnesses (SMIs), Personality Disorders, and Intellectual Disabilities (ID), and such disorders affect the capacity of an individual to fend for himself/herself in a court of law. He was of the opinion that forensic mental health assessment must, minimally, include an expert's opinion on the consciousness, thinking process, intellect, mood, emotions, perceptions, judgment and insight of the accused person. He also submitted that such assessment must include an evaluation of secondary functions of temperament, personality and the biological / physical state of the accused before a judgment can be passed on the existence or absence of mental illness. He went on to submit that in order to ensure a meaningful participation of an accused in a criminal trial, as provided by law, there are certain pre-requisites such as the accused must understand the nature of charge against him/her; he/she should have the ability to impart instructions to his/her counsel; he/she should be able to understand the difference between pleading guilty and not guilty; he/she must understand what is being said during the trial and what to do if he/she does not agree with what is being said; he/she must understand the evidence produced against him/her during trial and he/she must also be capable of leading evidence in his/her defence. He emphasized that without taking assistance of experts in the field of mental health i.e. psychiatrists and psychologists, it cannot conclusively be determined by the Court whether the accused is suffering from mental illness or whether he/she can understand the charge or defend himself/herself in Court and give instructions to counsel. 21. While commenting on the issue of executing mentally ill convicts, the learned amicus stated that in case the condemned prisoner is suffering from a mental illness making him/her incapable of understanding the retributive rationale behind his/her execution, the execution will serve no purpose either to him/her or to the society. Elaborating the point, he stated that this does not mean that he/she must be set free, rather, if this Court comes to the conclusion that mental illness can be a mitigating factor in converting the sentence of such a condemned prisoner from death to imprisonment for life, specific instructions may be passed on to the respective Governments to shift such mentally ill prisoner to some mental health facility for proper treatment and rehabilitation. He also suggested that effective steps should be taken by the prison authorities to protect a prisoner's mental health, prevent mental illness, ensure early detection and provide prompt treatment and rehabilitation. He further suggested that proper training be provided to the prison staff to help them deal with their stressful and challenging atmosphere. 22. Learned amicus curiae Barrister Haider Rasul Mirza, ASC has also been heard at length. He referred to different provisions of domestic and foreign laws on the subject, Prison Rules, Jail Manuals, judgments, and other material from domestic and foreign jurisdictions, to contend that a serious approach is required to be adopted by the Courts if the issue of mental illness of an accused/convict is raised either at the time of trial, or while hearing an appeal against conviction and sentence of a convict. He, while highlighting different provisions of Prison Rules, stated that the death sentence cannot be executed in case of a condemned prisoner who is unable to take rational decisions and whose ability to understand the