Court takes first step towards taking suicide off list of crimes

Source – indiatimes.com

NEW DELHI: In its path-breaking verdict linking right to life with right to die with dignity, the Supreme Court on Friday took the first step towards giving judicial support to the much canvassed proposition that it was inhuman to punish a distressed person who failed to end his life through suicide.
Section 309 of IPC provides that “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)”. A private member’s bill, moved by BJD MP Baijayant Panda in Parliament in 2016, proposed to decriminalise suicide except where it was intended to incite public anger and create a law and order situation.

In his 134-page judgment, Justice D Y Chandrachud touched on this issue and said a constitution bench of the SC in 1996 in Gian Kaur case had ruled that right to life did not include the right to die. The 22-year-old judgment said right to live with dignity could not be construed to include the right to terminate natural life “at least before commencement of the natural process of certain death”, he said.

“This court’s holding in Gian Kaur that the right to life does not include the right to die in the context of suicide may require to be revisited in future in view of domestic and international developments pointing towards decriminalisation of suicide,” Justice Chandrachud said.

He said Parliament had already made an exception to Section 309 while enacting the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017. Section 115 (1) of the Act provides, “Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, any person who attempts to commit suicide shall be presumed, unless proved otherwise, to have severe stress and shall not be tried and punished under the said code.” However, this law applies only to those suffering from mental illness.
Justice Chandrachud referred to Section 115(2) of the Mental Healthcare Act, which mandates the government to provide care, treatment and rehabilitation to a person having severe stress and who attempted to commit suicide, to reduce the risk of recurrence. “It removes the element of culpability which attaches to an attempt to commit suicide under Section 309 of IPC,” Justice Chandrachud said.

“It (the Act) regards a person who attempts suicide as a victim of circumstances and not an offender, at least in the absence of proof to the contrary, the burden of which must lie on the prosecution. Section 115 marks a pronounced change in our law about how society must treat and attempt to commit suicide. It seeks to align Indian law with emerging knowledge on suicide, by treating a person who attempts suicide being need of care, treatment and rehabilitation rather than penal sanctions,” he added.

Giving a philosophical tinge to his legal view on decriminalising suicide, Justice Chandrachud said, “It may also be argued that the right to life and the right to die are not two separate rights, but two sides of the same coin. The right to life is the right to decide whether one will or will not continue living. If the right to life were only a right to decide to continue living and did not also include a right to decide not to continue living, then it would be a duty to live rather than a right to life.” However, he left the issue for determination to the future saying no party to the case has sought a determination on the issue of decriminalising suicide while arguing for legalising euthanasia and living will.