SUICIDE UNDER IPC

(SEC. 309)

Submitted By: Submitted To:

Professor Pushpinder Gill
B.A LL.B (Hons.)
Roll No. –
Semester – VI
Section- B

-1-
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I owe a great many thanks to a many people who helped and supported me during the writing of
this project. My deepest thanks to Prof. Pushpinder Gill ma’am, the guide of the project for
guiding me. I would also thank my Institution and my faculty members without whom this
project would have been a distant reality. I also extend my heartfelt thanks to my family and well
wishers.

-2-
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………..5

2. Suicide…………………………………………………………………………………………..6

3. Whether Right to Life includes Right to Die? ............................................................................7

4. Philosophical Analysis of Law Commission Report : 210th Report……………………..……..8

5. Section 309 of IPC…………………………………………………………………………….10

6. Judicial approach towards interpretation of Section 309 of Indian Penal Code, 1860………..12

7. Mental Health Bill………………………………………………………………...…………...16

8. Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………..…...19

-3-
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Statutes:

 Section 306, Indian Penal Code , 1860

 Section 309, Indian Penal Code , 1860
 Article 21, Indian Constitution, 1950
 The Suicide Act, 1961

Books:

 Gour, Singh, Hari, “The Penal Law of India: Analytical Commentary on The Indian
Penal Code”(Law Publishers (India) Pvt. Ltd, 2003)
 Hogan, Smith, “Criminal Law”, (Oxford University Press Inc., New York, 2011)

Websites:

 Singh , Preeti, Should attempt to commit suicide be decriminalized, (Last visited on

January23rd,2014)
<http://www.ijra.in/uploads/41587.1617588889FULL%20PAPER%20PREETI.pdf>
 Admin, De-criminalization of section 309 of I.P.C, (Last visited on January 23rd , 2014)
<http://wizardlegal.in/blog/de-criminalization-of-section-309-ipc/>

Cases:

 Maruti Shripati Dubal v. State of Maharashtra (1987) Cr LJ 473 (Bom.)

 State v. Sanjaya Kumar Bhatia (1985) Cr LJ 931 (Del).
 P. Rathinam v. Union of India, AIR (1994) SC 1844.

-4-
 INTRODUCTION

To talk about suicide is not an easy task, even in a modern and open society. It is even more
difficult for a judge to deal with this issue. More difficult still is the task of deciding such a case
on an international level, far from the realities of the facts and the sufferings of the people
concerned. The moral and ethical considerations may vary considerably from one country to
another. The judge may face a broad range of situations, from cases where she must decide
whether the authorities did enough to prevent a fragile person from committing suicide, to cases
where she must decide whether the authorities were entitled, or even obliged, to facilitate the
suicide of a person willing to die.

Attempt to commit suicide is a last step of an aggrieved person. Such person struggles in the
society for his existence.

The Parliament of England enacted The Suicide Act, 1961. In that Act they treat the attempt to
commit suicide as a psychological and social problem, but not as a criminal problem. Hence by
the above Act, England Parliament abolished the punishment for attempt to commit suicide.

In 1971, the Law Commission of India recommended to remove Sec. 309 from the Indian Penal
Code. The Bill was introduced in the Parliament for removal of Sec. 309 from I.P.C. However
the Bill was not passed keeping in view of peculiar circumstances in India.

-5-
SUICIDE:

Suicide (Latin suicidium, from sui caedere, which means “to kill oneself”) is the act of
intentionally causing one’s own death. Suicide is enigmatic and disconcerting phenomenon.
Right from ancient to modern times, the events of suicide have been a distressing phenomenon
among all the human societies, in one way or the other. The mystery of suicide is do dominant
factor, or an event, that does not leave anyone, either a group or a class, to be out of this vicious
circle. The problem of suicide is the most ticklish and tedious one to deal with. When certain
force human or natural it becomes so dominating that the one feels dying better than living. In
the process of suicide, there is a lot of self-realization but no self-pity and self-condemnation.
Typically, a number of social and individual factors compel a person to commit suicide, such as
bankruptcy, family dishonor, divorce, dowry, failed relationships, cancellation or inability to get
married to a person whom you love, loss of job, failure in exams, cultural factors, socio-
economic factors and even stress etc.

Attempt must be intentional-

The essence of suicide is an intentional self destruction of life. Thus, if a person takes an
overdose of poison by mistake or in a state of intoxication, or in order to evade capture by his
pursuers he is not guilty under this section. Similarly, if a person because of family discord,
destruction, loss of a near and dear relation or other cause of a like nature overcomes the instinct
of self- preservation and decides to take his life, he should not be held guilty for attempt to
suicide. In such a case, the unfortunate man deserves indulgence, sympathy and consolation
instead of punishment. It is under very compelling adverse circumstances that a person resorts to
taking the extreme step of attempting to commit suicide. It can be on account of depressive
illness, schizophrenic attitude, physical illness which is intolerable, poverty, unemployment,
frustration, disappointment, dowry problems etc. But it is difficult to generalize any and
conceptualize particular theory because whenever we hear news about individuals committing
suicide, we immediately come up with a conclusion that these people are depressed, dissatisfied,
and unhappy with their lives. 1

1 Gour, Singh, Hari, “The Penal Law of India: Analytical Commentary on The Indian Penal Code”(Law Publishers
(India) Pvt. Ltd, 2003)

-6-
However, when popular and rich people commit suicide, we are left in confusion. Why would
someone who is loved and idolized by many decide to kill himself? Depression may be the main
culprit, but there are a lot of things to consider as well. These include overwhelming pain, grief,
and stress; some use it as an escape for their failure and shortcomings like criminals who are
about to be sentenced or caught.

Now focusing on the Kantian philosophical aspect on suicide that whether suicide is morally
correct act or not? If not, then why??

 WHETHER RIGHT TO LIFE INCLUDE RIGHT TO DIE?

The Indian constitution under article 21 confers the right to Life as the fundamental right of
every citizen. The Right to Life enriched in Article 21 has been liberally interpreted so as to
mean something more than mere survival and mere animal existence. The Supreme Court has
asserted that Article 21 is the heart of the fundamental Rights provided under part III of the
constitution. The Supreme Court has clearly stated that in order to treat a right as a fundamental
it is not mandatory that it should be expressly stated as a fundamental right. In India “The right
to life" under article 21 of the constitution has received the widest possible interpretation under
the able hands of the judiciary and rightly so. On the grounds as mentioned, article 21 does not
have a restrictive meaning and needs to be interpreted broadly. This affirms that if article 21
confers on a person the right to live a dignified life, it should bestows the “Right to Die” also, but
the inclusion of Right to die under article 21 contradict the provision of Indian Penal Code under
section 309. As according to section 309 of the Indian Penal Code “Whoever attempts to commit
suicide and does any act towards the commission of such offence, shall be punished with simple
imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine, or with both”. This section
is based on the principle that lives of men are not only valuable to them but also to the state
which protects them.

By considering both the laws the provision of Indian Penal Code under section 309 is
contradictory to the fundamental right guaranteed under article 21 of the Indian constitution. The
state’s power under section 309, Indian Penal Code to punish a man for attempt to commit a
suicide is questioned not only on the grounds of morality, but also on the constitutionality of the
said provision. A very fascinating development in the Indian constitutional jurisprudence is the

-7-
extended dimension given to article 21 by the Supreme Court in the post-Maneka era. Since then,
article 21 has proved to be multi-dimensional. This aspect of Article 21 is brought up by many
judicial pronouncements. This right is inalienable and is inherent in us. It cannot and is not
conferred upon us. This vital point seems to elude all those who keep on clamoring for the
"Right to die”. That means that every individual has a fundamental freedom to choose not to live.
On this issue the stance taken by the judiciary is unquestionable. The main question arises is that
whether right to life include right to death.

When a man commits suicide, he has to undertake certain positive overt acts and the genesis of
those acts cannot be traced to or to be included within the protection of right to life under the
article 21. The significant aspect of sanctity of life is also not to be overlooked.

PHILOSOPHICAL ANALYSIS OF LAW COMMISSION REPORT: 210TH REPORT

Throughout history, suicide has been both condemned and commended by various societies.
Since the middle Ages, society has used first the canonic and later the criminal law to combat
suicide. Following the French Revolution of 1789 criminal penalties for attempting to commit
suicide were abolished in European countries, England being the last to follow suit in 1961. Most
of the countries have decriminalize the suicide and only a handful of countries in the world, like
Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Singapore and India have persisted with this undesirable law.

The Law Commission of India in its 42ndReport (1971) recommended repeal of Section 309
being of the view that this penal provision is “harsh and unjustifiable”. The apprehension that
the repeal of the law criminalizing attempted suicide would result in increase in suicide is
betrayed by the fact that Sri Lanka repealed the law four years ago and the suicide rate is
showing a trend in reduction. On the contrary, in Singapore suicide rates have been increasing in
recent years despite their having suicide as a punishable offence.

The 18th Law Commission has in its 210th report has recommended Humanization and
Decriminalization of Attempt to Suicide. The report was forwarded by the Chairman of the
Commission, Dr. Justice AR. Lakshmanan, and former Supreme Court Judge to the Union Law
Minister, Dr. Hans Raj Bhardwaj. According to report- “Section 309 provides double

-8-
punishment for a person who has already got fed up with his life and desires to end it. Section
309 is also a stumbling block to prevention of suicides and improving the access of medical care
to those who have attempted suicide.” The Commission also added, “It is unreasonable to inflict
punishment upon a person who, on account of family discord, destitution, loss of a dear relation
or cause of a like nature, overcomes the instinct of self-preservation and decides to take his own
life. In such a case, the unfortunate person deserves sympathy, counseling and appropriate
treatment, and certainly not the prison. Section 309 needs to be effaced from the statute book
because the provision is inhuman, irrespective of whether it is constitutional or unconstitutional.”

Section 309 of the I.P.C reads as follows:

Attempt to commit suicide. “Whoever attempts to commit suicide and does any act towards the
commission of such offence shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may
extend to one year or with fine, or with both.”The law recommendation was based upon world
health organization reports, international association for suicide prevention, decriminalization of
attempted suicide by all countries in Europe and North America, the opinion of the Indian
Psychiatric Society, and the representations received by the Commission from various persons,
that it would relieve the distressed of suffering of the person who has attempted suicide.

The person who has attempted the suicide inspite of putting him with in bars and adding more
darkness in his misery world it’s better to provide the medical treatment and counseling the
person so that he can comes out from the trauma of depression from where he choose death over
life.

The object of keeping such act may be the utilitarian the deterrence punishment by punishing the
person attempting suicide bringing fear in minds of others will prevent the other from
committing similar crime but on the other hand, it is also becoming the reason of hard
committing suicide where the rescue chances lowers, because person might think if his/her
suicide attempt is unsuccessfulness then he/she would be prosecuted so to go with hard suicide
attempt. While, utilitarian also might view the act of suicide is somewhat negative act and its
leaving negative psychological impact in the society so as it is harming society in majority so the
person committing suicide(minority) shall be prosecuted so that suicidal impact on society is
reduced and there may be welfare of the majority.

-9-
Basically, no law can be made to prevent suicide attempt but policies can be made such where no
person thinks to commit suicide. If the philosophy of the Kantian is inbuilt in all human being
than no one would use its body as mean to eradicate its grief and suffering, and categorical
imperative that treat person as an end, and universalization policies of Kant is such that would
cease the person from giving his life due to pain and suffering. For Kant every individual is
rationale being. Kant has described suicide as morally wrong and irrational but nowhere
mentions that the person attempting suicide shall be punished.

It’s better to make reformative and preventive measure than punishing person in jail and keeping
him/her with hardened criminals where he may undergo more depression or may turn into
criminal so the consequences may be more worsen. Whereas punishing the person who attempts
to commit suicide serves no purpose. Nozick’s concept of Minimal state:

Libertarian argues that a „minimal state‟ is quintessential for liberty and freedom in a society. By
„minimal state‟ it means the state which concerns only with enforcing contract, protecting
private property and keeping peace. Thus for libertarian, state cannot engage in either
paternalism or moral legislation.

Now applying, the Nozick’s minimal state concept on the law commission recommendation. As
the law commission has also recommended that the section 309 of the Indian penal code shall be
repealed and Nozick‟s minimal state also speaks that no paternalism and no morals legislation.

No paternalism means don’t make law to protect people from harming themselves. No moral
legislation means the libertarian oppose using the coercive force of law to promote notions of
virtue or to express the moral convictions of the majority. The statistical data of suicide rate in
India shows inspite of having law against suicide attempt the number of suicide attempt has
increased, it mean that the law against suicide attempt serves no purpose. It is impossible to
make any law which could prevent any person from committing suicide. So making law for the
person who has attempted suicide and rescued and punishing him in jail is not worthful.

So one who want to commit suicide because he feels life is full of darkness has attempted suicide
so the state is nothing to do with it as the person is not violating the right of another so nothing
wrong in it . It’s the liberty of the person to live its life on its own terms, and every individual
knows where he finds pleasure and pain so state should not come with the law where the person

- 10 -
attempting suicide shall be punished. But state intervention should be such to make reformative
policy which would eliminate the reasons because of what the persons are committing suicides.

As engaging law to suicide attempt is having no beneficial consequences even it’s adding more

THE SUICIDE ACT 1961

Suicide is ceased to be a crime by virtue of the Suicide Act 1961 which simply provides that:
‘The rule of law whereby it is a crime for a person to commit suicide is hereby abrogated.’2

There were very sound reasons for the abolition of the felony of suicide. The ‘felon’ was dead
and thus beyond the reach of punishment. The legal sanction was not an effective deterrent- there
were some 5000 suicides a year; and the effect was merely to add to the distress and pain of the
bereaved relatives.

The most important practical effect of the Act however was its repeal by implication of the crime
of attempted suicide. If it was not a crime to commit suicide, it could not be a crime to attempt it.
This also recognized the realities of the situation for it had been the practice for many years to
institute proceedings only where it was necessary for the attempter’s prosecution, for example,
because no relatives and friends were willing to give help. Thus, in 1959, of a total of 4,980
suicide attempts known to the police (and an estimated actual total of 25,000 concealed from the
police) only 518 prosecutions were brought. The prosecution of the attempter may now be
secured under the Mental Health Act 1983.

2 Hogan, Smith, “Criminal Law”, (Oxford University Press Inc., New York, 2011)

- 11 -
  JUDICIAL APPROACH TOWARDS INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 309 OF
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

The state’s power under section 309, Indian Penal Code is questioned not only on grounds of
morality, but also on the constitutionality of the provision in the following cases as such:

 Maruti Shripati Dubal v. State of Maharashtra3

This is the case in which first time it came for the consideration before the court that whether a
person has a right to die. The petitioner, a police constable, who became mentally ill after a road
accident attempted to commit suicide by dousing himself with kerosene and then trying to light a
match was prevented and prosecuted under section 309 of Indian Penal Code. In 1987, the
Division Bench of Bombay High Court struck down section 309 of Indian Penal Code as ultra
vires vide article 14 and 21 of the constitution which guarantees ‘right to life and personal
liberty’. The court said the ‘right to life’ includes ‘right to live’ as well as ‘right to end one’s life’
if one so desires. It was pointed out that that Fundamental Rights have positive as well as
negative aspects. For example: Freedom of Speech and Expression also includes freedom not to
speak and to remain silent. If this is so, logically it must follow that right to live as recognized by
article 21 of the constitution also includes a right not to live or not to be forced to live. Justice
P.B. Sawant says that “If the purpose of the prescribed punishment is to prevent the prospective
suicides by deterrence, it is difficult to understand how the same can be achieved by punishing
those who have made the attempts. Those who make the suicide attempt on account of mental
disorder requires psychiatric treatment and not confinement in the prison cells where their
condition is bound to be worsen leading to further mental derangement. Those on the other hand,
who makes a suicide attempt on account of actual physical ailments, incurable disease, torture
(broken down by illness), and deceit physical state induced by old age or disablement, need
nursing home and not prison to prevent them from making the attempts again. No deterrence is
going to hold back those who want to die for a special or political cause or to leave the world
either because of the loss of interest in life or for self- deliverance. Thus in no case does the
punishment serve the purpose and in some cases it is bound to prove self defeating and counter -
productive.”

3 (1987) Cr LJ 473 (Bom.)

- 12 -
  State v. Sanjaya Kumar Bhatia4

In 1985, the Division Bench of Delhi High Court while acquitting a young boy who attempted to
commit suicide by consuming ‘Tik Twenty’ strongly advocated for deletion of section 309,
I.P.C. from the statue book and held that “the continuance of section 309 of the Indian Penal
Code is an anachronism unworthy of human society like ours, instead of sending the young boy
to a psychiatric clinic society, gleefully (happily) sends him to mingle with criminals. Medical
clinics are needed for such social misfits; but police and prison never.”

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.”

 P. Rathinam v. Union of India5

The two petitioners assailed the validity of Section 309 by contending the same to be violative of
Articles 14 and 21of the Constitution and the prayer was to declare the section as void. The
additional prayer was to quash the proceedings initiated against the latter petitioner under sec
309. In 1994, the Division Bench of Supreme Court comprising of Justices R.M. Sahai and B.L.
Hansaria, approved the Judgment of Bombay and Delhi High Courts, but overruled the Andhra
Pradesh High Court Judgment by contending that the Section 309 is violative of Articles 14 and
21 of the constitution.

While striking down Section 309, Indian Penal Code, the Apex Court said ‘it is cruel and
irrational provision violative of Article 21 of the constitution.’ Expanding the scope of Article
21, the court upheld that, ‘right to life’ include ‘right not to live a forced life’; i.e., to end one’s
life if one so desires. The court went on to say that---

4 (1985) Cr LJ 931 (Del)

5 AIR 1994 SC 1844.

- 13 -
“...it may result in punishing a person again (doubly) who has suffered agony and would be
undergoing ignominy (humiliation) because of his failure to commit suicide...An act of suicide
cannot be said to be against religion, morality or public policy and an act of attempted suicide
has not baneful effect on society. Further, suicide or attempt to commit it causes no harm to
others, because of which state’s interference with a personal liberty of the concerned person is
called for.”

The Court further said a person who attempts to commit suicide does not deserve prosecution
because he has failed. There can be no justification to prosecute sacrifices of their lives. For
instance, students who jump into the well after having failed in examination but survive; girls
and boys who resent arranged marriage and prefer to die, but ultimately fail, do not deserve
punishment; rather soft words, wise counseling of a psychiatrist and not stony dealing by a jailor
following harsh treatment meted out by a heartless prosecutor.

 Gyan Kaur v. State of Punjab6

In 1996, a five judge Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court comprising of Justices J.S. Verma,
G.N. Ray, N.P. Singh, Faizauddin and G.T. Nanawati overruled its decisions of 1994 in P.
Rathinam/ Naghbhusan Patnaik and upheld the constitutionality of Section 309.The appellant
and her husband were convicted by the Trial Court under Section 306, Indian Penal Code for
abetting the commission of suicide by Kulwant Kaur. In special leave before the Apex Court the
conviction of the appellant has been assailed (challenged), inter alia on the ground that Section
306 of Indian Penal Code is unconstitutional in view of Judgment in 1944; wherein Section 309
of Indian Penal Code has been held to be unconstitutional as violative of Article 21 of the
Constitution. The Court while dismissing the petition held that the ‘right to life’ is inherently
inconsistent with the ‘right to die’ as is ‘death’ with ‘life’. In furtherance, the right to life, which
includes right to live with human dignity, would mean the existence of such a right up to the
natural end of life. It may further include ‘death with dignity’ but such existence should not be
confused with unnatural existence of life curtailing natural span of life. In progression of the

6 AIR 1996 SC 1257

- 14 -
above, the constitutionality of section 309 of the Indian Penal Code which makes “attempt to
suicide” an offence, was upheld, overruling the judgment in P. Rathinam’s case.

The Apex Court further held that Section 306, Indian Penal Code as constitutional and said that
‘right to life’ does not include ‘right to die’. Extinction of life is not included in protection of life.
The Court further went on to say that Section 306 constitute a distinct offence and can exist
independently of Section 309, Indian Penal Code. As regards Section 309, Indian Penal Code is
concerned, the court said that the’ right to life’ guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution
did not include the ‘right to die’ or ‘right to be killed’ and therefore an attempt to commit suicide
under section 309, I.P.C. or even abetment of suicide under section 306, Indian Penal Code, are
well within the constitutional mandated, and are not void or ultra vires.

The Court said –“Article 21 is a provision guaranteeing protection of life and personal liberty
and by no stretch of imagination can ‘extinction of life’ be read to be included in ‘protection of
life’ whatever may be the philosophy of permitting a person to extinguish his life by committing
suicide, it is difficult to construe Article 21 to include within its ambit the ‘right to die’ as a part
of the Fundamental Right guaranteed therein. ‘Right to life’ is a natural right embodied in Article
21, but suicide is an unnatural termination or extinction of life and therefore incompatible and
inconsistent with the concept of ‘right to life’.”

Finally the Supreme Court upheld the retention of Sec. 309 in the Code. The Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court opined: “Attempt to commit suicide deserves treatment rather than punishment.”

- 15 -
MENTAL HEALTHCARE BILL

The Mental Healthcare Bill, 2016 is passed by the Parliament on Monday. The Bill repeals the
existing Mental Health Act, 1987, which is vastly different in letter and spirit. The Act of 1987
had been widely criticised for proving to be inadequate to protect the rights of mentally ill
persons. The bill seeks to decriminalise suicide attempt by persons suffering from severe stress
and provides for the right to better healthcare for people suffering from mental illness. The Bill
was passed by Rajyasabha in August last year.

Highlights of the Bill:

1. Mental Healthcare Bill seeks to decriminalise the Attempt to Commit Suicide. The most
important feature of this Bill is that a person attempting suicide shall be presumed, though
rebuttable, to be suffering from severe stress (the words ‘mental illness’ in the old Bill
substituted with ‘severe stress’) and hence, exempt from trial and punishment. The Bill also
seeks to impose on the government a duty to rehabilitate such person to ensure that there is no
recurrence of attempt to suicide. Also Read - Expressing Unpopular Views Not A Crime: P&H
HC Quashes FIR Against Author Who Referred 'Maharshi Valmiki' As A Dacoit [Read
Judgment]

2. Seeks to fulfil India’s international obligation pursuant to the Convention on Rights of Persons
with Disabilities and its Optional Protocol India signed and ratified the Convention on 1st
October 2007. The Bill adopts a more nuanced understanding of “mental illness” than the Act of
1987. However the Bill varies from the social model of disability incorporated in the
Convention. The social model of disability focuses on how disability hampers a person’s full and
effective participation of the society. The Bill, on the other hand, adopts a narrow approach to
see mental illness as hampering recognition of reality or ability to meet the ordinary demands of
life and also as conditions associated with drug and alcohol abuse.

3. Seeks to empower persons suffering from mental-illness, marking a departure from the Act of
1987. Whereas the Act of 1987 did not recognise the agency and capacity of a person suffering
from mental illness, the Bill adopts a radically different approach empowering the individual to
make decisions concerning her mental healthcare or treatment. This is in line with the objective
of the Convention to uphold the inherent dignity of the persons with disabilities. The capacity to

- 16 -
take such decisions is recognised if the individual can understand relevant information,
appreciate foreseeable consequences of such decisions and also can communicate them. The Bill
also lays down certain parameters for determination of mental illness, seeking to use nationally
and internationally accepted medical standards, especially the standards adopted by World
Health Organisation. The provision also seeks to preclude irrelevant factors in the determination
of mental illness. The Bill provides every person, except a minor, with a right to make an
Advance Directive specifying the way the person wishes to be cared for and treated for a mental
illness and also to appoint a nominated representative, who is entrusted with the task of
protecting the interests of the person suffering from mental illness. It is mandatory for every
medical officer and psychiatrist to provide treatment to an individual as per the Advance
Directive except when the Mental Health Review Board finds that the directive can be altered on
considerations like lack of free will, information or capacity; or illegality of the content; or
circumstances differing from those anticipated by the person making the directive.

4. Adopts a rights-based approach, which is a first in the mental health law of India. The Bill
creates a rights-based framework for mentally ill persons. This is a remarkable difference from
the Act of 1987. Whereas the Act of 1987 provided only general protections against indignant or
cruel treatment, Chapter V of the Bill operates as a charter of rights for persons with mental
illness consolidating and safeguarding the basic human rights of these individuals. The Bill
guarantees every person the right to access mental health care and treatment from mental health
services run or funded by government. This right is meant to ensure mental health services of
affordable cost, of good quality, of sufficient quantity, are geographically accessible and are
provided without discrimination. The Bill also recognises the right to community living; right to
live with dignity; protection from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment; treatment equal to
persons with physical illness; right to relevant information concerning treatment other rights and
recourses; right to confidentiality; right to access their basic medical records; right to personal
contacts and communication; right to legal aid; recourse against deficiencies in provision of care,
treatment and services. Every insurer is bound to make provision for medical insurance for
treatment of mental illness on the same basis as is available for treatment of physical illness.

5. Provisions for registration of institutions and regulation of the sector The Bill provides for
the creation of Central and State Mental Health Authorities in order to ensure registration and

- 17 -
supervision of mental health establishments; to develop quality and service norms for these
establishments; to ensure registration of psychologists, mental health nurses, psychiatric social
workers; to train law enforcement officials and mental health professionals about implementation
of the Bill; and to advise government on mental health related issues. Registration of mental
health establishments is made mandatory by providing for stringent penalty for violation. The
registration is contingent on the establishment complying with the regulations issued by relevant
Authority. The Bill also provides for the creation of Mental Health Review Boards that has
adjudicatory powers over the various rights and protections guaranteed by the Bill. Further, an
appeal is allowed to the High Court against the order of the Authority or the Board, while there is
a bar on jurisdiction of civil courts to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter
which the Authority or the Board is empowered to decide. These provisions have been critically
viewed for creating dependency of mental health practitioners on the government.

6. The Bill allows only restricted use of Electro-convulsive therapy. The Bill completely
prohibits Electro-compulsive therapy (“ECT”) as a measure of emergency treatment. It also
prohibits ECT without muscle relaxants and anaesthesia. ECT is completely prohibited for
minors except with informed consent of the guardian and prior permission of the concerned
Board.

7. Property Management Unlike the Act of 1987, the Bill does not provide for management of
property of mentally ill persons. This is a serious cause of concern as mentally ill persons could
easily be exploited and their property taken away from them, leaving such individuals in a
perpetual state of dependency. The series of rights recognised by the Bill do not account for
property management of mentally ill persons. The Standing Committee report took note of this
discrepancy and recommended that the central government implement necessary transitory
schemes.

8. Responsibilities of certain other Agencies The Bill imposes a duty on the police officer in the
charge of a police station to take under protection any person found wandering at large within the
limits of the police station; such person will be subject to examination by a medical officer and
based on such examination will be either admitted to a mental health establishment or be taken to
her residence or to an establishment for homeless persons. Further, a police officer in charge of a
police station shall report to the Magistrate if he has reason to believe that a mentally ill person is

- 18 -
being ill-treated or neglected. Upon this report, the Magistrate may pass an order to cause the
person to be produced before him to be subsequently examined by a medical officer or a mental
health professional or be provisionally admitted to a mental health establishment. The Bill also
provides that whenever during a judicial process, a proof of mental illness is produced and the
same is challenged, the court shall refer it to the concerned Board and the Board shall submit its
opinion to the court.

9. Funds The Bill guarantees a right of affordable, accessible and quality mental health care and
treatment from mental health services run or funded by Central and State governments. The Bill
also makes provision for a range of services to be provided by the appropriate government.
However, the estimate of expenditure required to meet the obligations under the law is not
available. It is also not clear how the funds will be allocated between the Central and the State
governments. The Standing Committee report recommended allocation of funds to states noting
that without such allocation, states facing financial constraints will not be able to implement the
bill.

10. The Bill seeks to tackle stigma attached to mental illness By addressing mental illness from
a holistic perspective and by empowering mentally ill persons, the Bill seeks to remove the
stigma attached to mental illness. It makes effort to secure equal treatment for persons with
mental illness and those with physical illness. However, some critics believe that the Bill,
especially the expansive definition of “mental illness”, will only hurt a large number of victims
of even minor mental illnesses and their families, because of the wide prevalence of stigma,
while not really tackling the issue of stigma.

- 19 -
CONCLUSION:

If we observe our penal laws which are nothing but the handiwork of Britishers have by and
large remained untouched even after more than 60 years of independence. It’s very pathetic that
Britishers have themselves amended their penal laws and decriminalized attempt to suicide way
back in 1961 but we are yet to even deliberate on taking any action on this decisive issue which
subjects an already tormented person to further punishment and ignominy. Are we still waiting
only to be the last country in the world to decriminalize attempt to suicide?

Ours is a democracy which means that it is by the people, of the people and for the people.

Constitution locates power that resides in the people. It is the people’s power for people’s
benefit. Constitution is a social document. It is the society in its political aspect. We can’t
understand its nature without understanding the chief characteristics of the society. If the
constitution is such that it has taken into its consideration, the social set up, then only will it
stand the test of time. Constitution and society grows, develops together and gets intertwined in
each other. So, the constitution has to take into account the changes and developments in the
society.

Therefore, it is wrong to say that the Indian penal code is a modern code in every possible sense.
Laws are made for the people and it should be change to meet the aims and aspiration of the
changing society. Ultimately, the aim should be to evolve a consensual and conceptual model
effectively handling the evils without sacrificing human rights. Therefore section 309 should be
deleted from the Indian penal Code because as mentioned in Maruti Shripati Dubal that “No
deterrence is going to hold back those who want to die for a special or political cause or to leave
the world either because of the loss of interest in life or for self- deliverance. Thus in no case
does the punishment serve the purpose and in some cases it is bound to prove self defeating and
counter - productive”. In any case a person should not be forced to enjoy the right to live to his
detriment, disadvantage, and disliking. Further, the “Right to life” under Article 21 should not
include “right to die” because this provision might increase the rates of suicides in the country
and moreover the “Right to life’ is a natural right embodied in Article 21 but suicide is an
unnatural termination or extinction of life and, therefore incompatible and inconsistent with the
concept of “right to life”. Although the judgment given by Supreme Court in Gyan Kaur is

- 20 -
followed but according to me this should be scrapped from the I.P.C. but the ‘right to die’ should
not be expressively included in the “right to life”, because “Life is a gift given by God and He
alone can take it”. It is premature termination cannot be approved by any society. Neither should
it be penalized. Attempt to commit suicide is a ‘manifestation of diseased mind’. So what is to be
done is rightly stated by the decision given in P. Rathinam’s case-“What is needed to take care of
suicide prone persons are soft words and wise counseling (of a psychiatrist), and not stony
dealing by a jailor following harsh treatment meted out by a heartless prosecutor. Section 309 of
the Penal Code deserves to be effaced from the statute book to humanize our penal laws. It is a
cruel and irrational provision, and it may result in punishing a person again (doubly) who has
suffered agony and would be undergoing ignominy because of his failure to commit suicide.”

The desirability for deletion of Section 309 of I.P.C. is also the view supported by the majority of
states in India. Twenty five Indian states except Madhya Pradesh, Bihar and Sikkim have favored
striking down I.P.C. Section 309 that criminalizes attempt to commit suicide by making it
punishable with imprisonment.

Suicide or attempt to commit suicide is a crime in India in Section 309 of Indian law book.
However, time and again there have been petitions by the lawyers of various states to
decriminalize suicide. There is frequent submission on health bills and Public Interest
Litigation (PIL) submitted to the Law Commission to decriminalize the attempt to suicide. The
recent submission was by the Mental Health Organization in their bill for the same.

Suicide could be committed on sudden impulse. It is when a person has lost hope in life. What
makes the makers of law and order so vindictive and callous that they are keen to punish the
people who have already tried to take away their own life once. The victim who tried to die is
punishable by either putting behind the bars for a year or pays the compensation fine. Ironical
isn’t it?

Compensation for life or the failure to successfully commit suicide? Implementation of section
309 in the Indian Penal Code to deal with the person who commits suicide is not only
unsatisfactory but also discriminatory. Time has been testimony to the fact that many political
and religious leaders have opposed this act by resorting to hunger strike until death.

- 21 -
Isn't it unjust to inflict additional legal punishment on a person who has already suffered agony
and discomfiture in his failure to commit suicide? When a tormented soul tries to end his life, it
would be entirely cruel to order further punishment just because he failed in ending in life.

The question that arises here is that wouldn't this act of punishing a troubled person further
provide incentive to end his life again. It is disgraceful that the Central government has been
denying the request to decriminalize suicide. I would agree that ending one's own life is certainly
not a solution to leave all tribulations behind. Therefore, I would suggest that the youth needs to
be sensitized regarding themselves and peers that life is precious. There has been a huge rise in
the suicide rates in the recent times. There is lack of confidence in people. The moral build up of
the coming generation is very important. According to an article in the premier journal lancet for
medical science. Suicide death rates in India are among the highest in the world. Adult suicide
deaths occur primarily between the age of 15 to 29 years. Reasons for suicide are a combination
of social problems, financial problems, and lack of mental strength, depression or failure.

Instead of punishing the victim, there should be rehabilitation centers for counseling of the
individuals. Everybody should be vigilant and careful towards their loved ones. Parents should
give freedom to their children but they should be watchful towards their reactions to situations.
Schools and colleges should conduct regular seminars on moral science for motivation and
positive attitude of the students. The petition submitted by Mental Health organization of India
that instead of punishing the victim who commits suicide, they deserve empathy. It further
submitted that the Supreme Court, the Law Commission and several High Courts recommend de-
criminalization of the offence, describing it 'anachronistic on the victim.

In conclusion, it can be said that to resolve this debate, the conflict between the principle of
sanctity of life and the rights of self determination and dignity of an individual is to be resolved
first and right to die should not be generalized but should be exercised as an exception in the
“rarest of rare cases” like Death Penalty in India. Thus life is sacred and one should not waste
time in planning about their death but planning about how to enjoy life. Terminating life is not an
answer to pain. All along life’s journey man will suffer pain whether it is physical or mental or
emotional or psychological. When life is woe and hope is dumb, the world says go! The grave
says, come! Whose voice will you hear? Will you be a faint heart and say that I want the right to

- 22 -
die or will you in your sorrow and misery and pain be a brave heart and say, dear God give me
two more precious moments because I want to cherish the precious gift of life.

- 23 -