Analysis Of Suicide As A Crime
Author: LawSphereX
Category: Criminal Law
Published:
Updated:
ANALYSIS OF SUICIDE AS A CRIME
Richa Patel & Ishika Shrivastava, LL.M. (Criminology), Dharmashastra National Law University, Jabalpur
ABSTRACT
This research paper delves into the issue of suicide, exploring its historical, social, legal, and mental health dimensions within the Indian context. Suicide, defined as the intentional act of ending one's life, is often the tragic result of various influences, including mental health issues, societal pressures, financial hardships, and personal crises. While historically stigmatized in Indian society, modern perspectives increasingly recognize the need for a compassionate approach to individuals struggling with suicidal ideation or attempts. The legal discourse surrounding the "right to die" has sparked considerable debate, particularly with Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which protects the right to life. Landmark cases like Maruti Shripati Dubal v. State of Maharashtra and P. Rathinam v.
Union of India have challenged the constitutionality of Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalized attempted suicide, calling attention to the moral and constitutional implications of penalizing individuals in distress. In 2017, the enactment of the Mental Healthcare Act marked a shift toward decriminalizing attempted suicide and ensuring mental health rights. This paper examines significant judicial decisions, critiques the inherent contradictions in legal interpretations of the right to life, and assesses the impact of the Mental Healthcare Act in advancing mental health support. Through a multidimensional approach, it underscores the importance of legal reform, mental health education, and community support in suicide prevention, advocating for a society that addresses mental health stigma and supports individuals in crisis.
INTRODUCTION
Suicide is the act of intentionally ending one's own life. It is a complex phenomenon influenced by various factors such as mental health issues, social pressures, environmental stressors, and personal circumstances. Suicide, originates from the Latin term suicidium, is a deeply troubling and perplexing phenomenon wherein individuals intentionally end their own lives. Throughout history, suicide, the act of intentionally ending one's life, has remained as a troubling presence across human societies. This complex issue continues to baffle and distress us. Unlike a simple answer, the reasons for suicide are varied. Financial hardship, family struggles, relationship issues, and even stress can all be contributing factors. Importantly, suicide isn't driven by selfpity or blame. It's often a tragic response to overwhelming circumstances.
However, it's important to recognize that each individual's circumstances are unique, and there's no one-sizefits-all explanation for suicidal behaviour. While some may indeed struggle with mental health issues or external stressors, others may be grappling with existential questions, spiritual crises, or profound emotional pain. Suicide has historically been stigmatized in Indian society, with cultural and religious beliefs often influencing attitudes toward mental health and suicide prevention. From a legal standpoint, Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code historically criminalized attempted suicide, although there have been calls for its abolition due to concerns about its effectiveness and its impact on mental health treatment-seeking behaviours. However, the Mental Healthcare Act of
2017 decriminalized attempted suicide and emphasized the need for mental health support and
treatment for individuals in distress. This legislative change reflects a growing recognition of the importance of addressing mental health concerns and providing support rather than punishment for individuals experiencing suicidal ideation or attempts.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1. How have Indian legal perspectives on suicide evolved, particularly with respect to the
right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution?
2. How do the provisions of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, contribute to suicide
prevention and the mental well-being of individuals experiencing suicidal ideation?
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE
1. To assess the evolution of laws addressing suicide, with a focus on Section 309 of the
Indian Penal Code, the impact of landmark cases, and the Mental Healthcare Act of 2017.
2. To analyze the implications of the Act on decriminalizing attempted suicide and
promoting mental healthcare support, rights, and access for individuals with mental illnesses.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The research methodology employed in this paper adopts a doctrinal, analytical approach. Given the legal, social, and psychological dimensions of suicide, this study primarily relies on secondary sources, including statutes, judicial decisions, academic articles, and books, to understand the legal treatment and social implications of suicide as a crime in India.
ATTEMPT NEEDS TO BE INTENTIONAL
The essence of suicide is an intentional self-destruction of life. So, if someone accidentally takes too much medicine or poison or does it while being drunk, or to escape from danger, they're not considered guilty of suicide. Similarly, if someone is overwhelmed by family problems, grief, or other unbearable situations and decides to end their life, they shouldn't be punished. Instead, they deserve understanding, sympathy, and help. People might attempt suicide because of various reasons like mental illness, feeling hopeless, physical pain, poverty, job loss, or family issues. But it's hard to say there's one reason for everyone because each person's situation is different. When we hear about someone attempting suicide, we might think they're depressed or unhappy, but it's not always that simple. DOES RIGHT TO LIFE INCLUDE RIGHT TO DEATH?
The central question is whether the right to life includes the right to death. When someone commits suicide, they engage in positive overt acts that cannot be considered within the
protection of the right to life under Article 211. Moreover, the sanctity of life remains a significant aspect to be considered. The Indian Constitution, under Article 21, grants every citizen the fundamental right to life. This right has been interpreted broadly by the judiciary, extending beyond mere survival to encompass a dignified existence. The Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of Article 21, considering it the heart of the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution. Importantly, a right does not need to be expressly stated as a fundamental right to be treated as such. Despite this broad interpretation, there is a contradiction between the inclusion of the "Right to Die" under Article 212 and Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code.
Section 309 criminalizes attempted suicide, reflecting the principle that human lives are valuable not only to individuals but also to the state. This contradiction raises questions not only about morality but also about the constitutionality of Section 309. The Supreme Court has expanded the dimensions of Article 21, particularly in the postManeka era, making it multi-dimensional. However, it is crucial to understand that the right to life is inherent and inalienable, not something conferred upon individuals. This concept is often overlooked by those advocating for the "Right to Die. "
CASE LAWS
In the case of Maruti Shripati Dubal v. State of Maharashtra3, the question of whether an individual has the right to die came before the court. The petitioner, (police constable) who had become mentally ill after the road accident attempted to commit suicide by pouring kerosene and attempting to light a match. However, he was prevented from doing so and subsequently prosecuted under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalizes attempted suicide. In 1987, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court struck down Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code as ultra vires (beyond the powers) of Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution,
1 The Constitution of India,1949.
2 20240716890312078.pdf,
https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s380537a945c7aaa788ccfcdf1b99b5d8f/uploads/2024/07/202407168903 12078.pdf (last visited Nov 2, 2024).
3 Maruti Shripati Dubal v. State of Maharashtra, (1987) Cr LJ 473(Bom.)
which guarantee the right to life and personal liberty. The court argued that the right to life includes both the right to live and the right to end one's life if one so desire. It emphasized that fundamental rights have both positive and negative aspects, meaning that the right to live recognized by Article 21 also includes the right not to live or not to be forced to live. Overall, the court's decision, in this case, highlighted the need to reconsider the legality and morality of criminalizing attempted suicide, emphasizing the importance of providing support and care to individuals struggling with mental or physical health issues rather than subjecting them to punishment. In State v. Sanjaya Kumar Bhatia (1985)4, the Delhi High Court acquitted a young boy who attempted suicide with 'Tik Twenty'.
The court strongly advocated for removing Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, arguing that it's outdated and sends individuals to prisons instead of medical clinics for help with mental health issues. They emphasized the need for a compassionate approach and criticized societal pressures contributing to suicide attempts. The Delhi High Court observed that: “Many penal offences are the offshoots of an unjust society and socially decadent outlook of love between young people being frustrated by false consideration of code, community or social pretensions. No wonder so long as society refuses to face this reality its coercive machinery will invoke the provision like Section 309 I. P. C. which has no justification right to continue remain on the statute book. ”5 In the case of P. Rathinam v. Union of India6, two petitioners challenged the validity of Section
309 of the Indian Penal Code, arguing that it violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
They sought to have the section declared void and to quash proceedings initiated against one of the petitioners under this section. In 1994, the Division Bench of the Supreme Court, consisting of Justices R.M. Sahai and B.L. Hansaria, upheld the judgments of the Bombay and Delhi High Courts but overruled the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The Supreme Court held that Section 309 was indeed violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and struck it down. The Court expanded the scope of Article 21, affirming that the right to life includes the right not to live a
4 (1985) Cr LJ 931 (Del)
5 State v. Sanjaya Kumar Bhatia (1985) Cr LJ 931 (Del)
6 P. Rathinam v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 1257
forced life, allowing individuals the right to end their lives if they so desire. It criticized Section
309 as cruel and irrational, stating that punishing someone who has already suffered and failed
in attempting suicide would only cause further agony and humiliation. The Court emphasized that suicide or attempted suicide does not harm others and therefore does not warrant state interference with personal liberty. It argued against prosecuting individuals who attempt suicide, stating that they deserve understanding and counseling rather than punishment. Examples cited include students who attempt suicide due to exam failures and individuals who resist arranged marriages. Instead of harsh treatment, the Court advocated for compassionate counseling and support. In the case of Gyan Kaur v. State of Punjab7 in 1996, a five-judge Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court overruled its previous decisions and upheld the constitutionality of Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The appellant and her husband were convicted by the trial court under Section 306 of the IPC for abetting the suicide of Kulwant Kaur. The appellant challenged her conviction, arguing that Section 306 was unconstitutional in light of the earlier decision in 1994, where Section 309 was held to be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and held that the 'right to life' inherently contradicts the 'right to die. ' The Court emphasized that the right to life, including the right to live with dignity, extends until the natural end of life. While 'death with dignity' may be included, it should not be confused with unnatural termination of life. The Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 309, making 'attempt to suicide' an offense. It also ruled that Section 306, which deals with abetment of suicide, is constitutional.
The Court clarified that the 'right to life' does not include the 'right to die,' and therefore, the criminalization of suicide attempts and abetment of suicide are consistent with constitutional mandates. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court emphasized that individuals who attempt suicide deserve treatment rather than punishment. The Court affirmed that Article 21, which guarantees protection of life and personal liberty, does not encompass the right to die as a fundamental right. Therefore, Section
309 was retained in the Indian Penal Code.
7 Gyan Kaur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1996 SC 1257
THE MENTAL HEALTHCARE ACT, 2017
The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017,8 enacted by the Parliament of India, is designed to enhance mental healthcare services and safeguard the rights of individuals with mental illness. The Mental Healthcare Act (MHCA) of 20179 represents a major reform in India's approach to mental health. Enacted in 2017, it supersedes the previous Mental Health Act of 1987. It establishes fundamental rights for persons with mental illness, including access to treatment without discrimination, privacy, dignity, and autonomy. Notably, the Act permits the creation of advance directives, allowing individuals to outline their treatment preferences in advance. A critical change introduced by the MHCA is the decriminalization of attempted suicide. This removes the fear of punishment and encourages people in crisis to seek help without hesitation.
The Act also empowers individuals through the concept of advance directives. These directives allow people to predetermine their preferences for mental healthcare in situations where they are unable to make decisions for themselves. Here are some key provisions of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017:
1. Rights of Persons with Mental Illness: The Act recognizes and upholds the rights of
individuals with mental illness, including the right to access mental healthcare and treatment without discrimination, the right to privacy, dignity, and autonomy, and the right to community living.
2. Advance Directives: The Act allows individuals to make advance directives, which are
legal documents that specify the treatment preferences and choices of a person in the event that they become mentally incapacitated in the future.
3. Mental Health Review Boards: The Act mandates the establishment of Mental Health
Review Boards at the district, state, and national levels. These boards are responsible for reviewing cases related to admission, treatment, and discharge of individuals with mental illness, ensuring that their rights are protected.
4. Rights and Duties of Caregivers: The Act outlines the rights and duties of caregivers,
including family members and guardians of individuals with mental illness. It 8 A2017-10.pdf, https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/2249/1/A2017-10.pdf (last visited Nov 2, 2024).
9 Ibid.
emphasizes the importance of providing support and assistance to caregivers and involving them in the decision-making process regarding the treatment and care of the person with mental illness.
5. Prohibition of Electroconvulsive Therapy (ECT) without Anesthesia: The Act prohibits
the use of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) without the use of anaesthesia, except in cases where it is deemed necessary and specified by a psychiatrist.
6. Decriminalization of Suicide: The Act decriminalizes attempted suicide, recognizing
that individuals who attempt suicide require medical and psychological support rather than punishment.
7. Regulation of Mental Health Establishments: The Act provides for the registration and
regulation of mental health establishments, including psychiatric hospitals, nursing homes, and counseling centers, to ensure that they meet the required standards of care and treatment.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, suicide remains a deeply complex and challenging issue that have distressed societies throughout history. Despite advancements in understanding and addressing mental health, suicide continues to claim lives and devastate families and communities. The debate surrounding the right to die and the criminalization of suicide attempts raises fundamental questions about autonomy, dignity, and the role of the state in regulating individual choices. The cases discussed, particularly those from Indian courts, highlight the evolving legal and societal attitudes towards suicide. While there has been a historical tendency to criminalize suicide attempts, there is a growing recognition of the need for compassion, support, and mental health treatment for individuals in distress.
The Mental Healthcare Act of 2017 represents a significant step forward in this regard by decriminalizing attempted suicide and emphasizing the rights and dignity of individuals with mental illness. It is crucial for societies to continue destigmatizing mental illness, promoting awareness, and providing accessible mental health services to prevent suicide and support those in crisis. Additionally, efforts should focus on addressing underlying factors such as social inequality, economic hardship, and interpersonal conflicts that contribute to suicidal behavior.
Ultimately, the prevention of suicide requires a multifaceted approach that encompasses legal reforms, mental health education, community support, and empathetic understanding. By working together to prioritize mental health and support those in need, we can strive towards a future where every individual feels valued, supported, and hopeful for the future.