By Meher Sunil Dabrai
Introduction
Suicide is the act of killing oneself or taking one’s own life. It is an act where a person intentionally takes his or her own life when they are struggling with life difficulties or mental health problems. It has often been found that stress and depression are the main reasons due to which people may commit suicide.
The suicide rate in India and all over the world has been on the rise and there has been a substantial increase in the number of suicide after the Covid-19 pandemic in India as well as abroad.
The pandemic has brought along with-it economic problems and mental health issues due to lack of outdoor activities that have taken a toll on the lives of several people and has eventually led to a rise in the number of suicides in the country.
Thus, this article deals with the concept of decriminalizing suicide in India.
What is Right to die and attempt to commit suicide?
It has been interpreted that the right to live under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution also includes the right to die. It has often been interpreted in such a way that the right to live should include the right of an individual to end his or her own life.
Article 21 of the Constitution conflicts with Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code that states that whoever attempts to commit suicide and does any act towards commission of suicide, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term that should extend to one year or with fine or both.
The conflict between these two provisions of law has been an everlasting debate amongst the legal fraternity in India.
In the case of:
- P. Rathinam Vs. Union of India[1]
The conflict between Article 21 of the Constitution and Section 309 of the IPC.
A two judge bench of the Supreme Court took cognizance of the contradiction between Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
The Court stated that Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code that criminalized the attempt to suicide was unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated not only Article 21 but also Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. The Court termed the provision to be “cruel and irrational”.
- Smt. Gian Kaur Vs. State of Punjab[2]
Overruled the P.Rathinam judgement.
A five judge bench of the Supreme Court overruled the above mentioned judgement as the court observed that the ‘right to life’ did not include the ‘right to die’ as they were inconsistent with each other. It was agreed that the right to life includes ‘right to die with dignity’ but that does not include any kind of unnatural death.
The court held that right to life is a natural right and the right to end a life even if its one’s own life amounts to an unnatural right and cannot be included under Article 21.
- Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug Vs. Union of India and Others[3]
The Euthanasia judgement.
This case is popularly called “the Euthanasia Case”.
Aruna Shanbaug was in a coma or a Persistent Vegitative State (PVS) for nearly 42 years until her death in 2015. The Supreme Court recommended the Parliament to consider the decriminalization of Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code and lay guidelines for passive euthanasia for patients who were in vegetative state or extreme distress and have no hope for recovery.
The judgement was made keeping in mind the constitutional right to die with dignity. This is landmark case that led to the law permitting passive euthanasia (by removing life support) in the country.
This was also the case after which the Mental Healthcare Bill was introduced in the Rajya Sabha in the year 2013 and after a lot of contemplation the Mental Healthcare Act was finally passed in the year 2017.
What can be understood by decriminalization of suicide?
Section 309 was a provision that had been added into the Indian Penal Code from English law. Later, the British parliament itself went on to decriminalize the attempt to suicide in the year 1961 in the Suicide Act.
Eventually the Law Commission of India undertook to revise the Indian Penal Code and recommended repealing Section 309. The bill was introduced in the Rajya Sabha but failed to pass through the Lok Sabha resulting in its dissolution.
This brought about a change in the mental outlook of many people across the country and they realized that a person who has survived suicide should not be shamed for trying to take away their own life.
The only reason for suicide to be a criminal offence in the past was to instill a fear in the minds of the people and prevent them from trying to take their own lives.
A few years following this, the Mental Health Care Act 2017 that had commenced in 2018 limited the scope of Section 309 by decriminalizing it. As per the change, a person who has attempted to commit suicide is presumed to have severe stress and shall not be tried or punished under the Indian Penal Code.
This change has come along with an acceptance of mental health issues in the country that were earlier viewed as a taboo. This law understands that a person who has tried to end his life is to a person who is in need of help or treatment rather than a person who should be punished. It is unfortunate that there has been a major delay in bringing about the change due to the severe opposition that it faced.
There were an umpteen amount of cases where the judicial authorities thought that the survivor of an attempt to suicide should go unpunished which eventually acted as a precedent in decriminalizing Section 306.
Some of these cases are as follows:
- State Vs. Sanjaya Kumar Bhatia[4]
Section 309 is a provision that is “unworthy of society”.
The Delhi High Court had acquitted the accused who had attempted to commit suicide. The court opined that Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code should be deleted from the statute or decriminalized and also termed it to be “unworthy of society”.
What can be understood by abatement to suicide?
Attempt to suicide is not a criminal offence anymore and the survivors are helped instead of being punished. After the Mental Health Act, the scope of Section 309 is limited to Section 115 of the Mental Health Care Act.
When a person tries to take their own life, it is usually done due to underlying stress, depression or any other personal issues that the person may be facing in his or her life. This is not the case in abatement to suicide.
Abatement to suicide is when another person blackmails, threatens or creates circumstances that force a person to take his or her life. Abatement to suicide is when a person has an ill intention and wants another person to commit suicide.
The fact that the abettor or the person who abets another to commit suicide has an ill intention cannot go unpunished and therefore, it is still a punishable offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
The section states that a person who abets another person to commit suicide can be punished with imprisonment which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine. Abatement to suicide also includes aiding another person in the process of committing suicide.
In the cases of:
- Gurucharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab[5]
Intention and involvement of the accused are important factors to constitute abatement of suicide.
The Supreme Court held that for a person to be guilty of abetment to suicide the involvement and intention of the guilty needs to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Remote acts or omission to suicide cannot attract Section 306. The accused must play an active role rather than mere words or actions that are spoken in a fit of anger or in an argument.
- Swami Prahaladdas Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another[6]
Abatement of suicide is still operative despite the decriminalization of suicide.
The Supreme Court held that the words “go and die” that the accused had said during an argument on face value did not amount to the instigation of the commission of suicide. The abatement of suicide is still an offence and when a person takes his own life because of stress he is not considered as a criminal but abatement to suicide is still an offence and Section 306 is still operative.
Conclusion
The Mental Health Act and the decriminalization of attempt to suicide brought about the required mental health awareness that had eventually led to a decline in the suicide rates in the country.
Despite this, in lieu of the Covid-19 pandemic, the mental health issues due to insufficient outdoor activities, the economic stress, increase in domestic violence and many other factors that were directly proportional to the pandemic have led to a major increase in the suicide rates in India.[7]
A World Health Organization report has indicated that India has had the highest rate of suicides in South East Asia and has an average of 16.5 suicides per 1,00,000 people. In the very beginning of the pandemic in 2020, the suicide of the popular Bollywood actor Sushant Singh Rajput also brought a lot of attention to this aspect of the viciousness that the Covid-19 pandemic had brought along with it in terms of mental health problems.
This case also brought the attention of the Government to the issue and the Government did its part in organizing free Covid-19 mental healthcare guidelines and toll free numbers to provide the people suffering from stress and depression the help that they need even in such testing times.
There are a lot of such facilities that are available on the internet and government portals that are cost effective and provide counselling and appropriate therapy to people who may be feeling suicidal.
Unfortunately, mental health still remains a taboo in many rural areas in the country. Once mental health receives the same importance as physical health and people are given proper therapy and counselling, the suicide rates will continue their downward spiral and the Mental Health Act will truly be a success.
References
- blog.ipleaders.in
- blog.ipleaders.in
- lawctopus.com
- timesnownews.com
- freepressjournal.in
- economictimes.indiatimes.com
- P. Rathinam Vs. Union of India AIR 1844, 1994 SCC (3) 394 ↑
- Smt. Gian Kaur Vs. State of Punjab 1996 AIR 946 ↑
- Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug Vs. Union of India (Writ Petition(Criminal) No. 115 of 2009 ↑
- State Vs. Sanjaya Kumar Bhatia Crl R. 126/84 ↑
- Gurucharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 2011 ↑
- Swami Prahaladdas Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another Criminal Appeal No.40 of 2011 ↑
- Amid COVID-19 outbreak, India’s suicide epidemic remains unaddressed – these graphs show how- available at: timesnownews.com (Last visited on June 27th 2021) ↑