Attempt To Suicide And Decriminalization
1. Attempt to Suicide – Legal Provision
In India, Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) criminalized attempt to commit suicide.
The section states:
“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.”
Essentially, a person who survived a suicide attempt could be prosecuted.
2. Decriminalization of Attempt to Suicide
Over time, this provision was criticized as unjust and inhuman because a person attempting suicide is usually under severe stress or mental illness. Punishing them was seen as adding insult to injury.
India took a major step with the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 (MHA 2017):
Section 115 of MHA 2017 provides that any person who attempts suicide shall be presumed to have severe stress and shall not be tried or punished under Section 309 IPC.
However, it allows the government to prove otherwise if it can show the person did not suffer from stress.
So now, practically, attempt to suicide is decriminalized in India, though Section 309 IPC still exists on paper.
3. Important Case Laws
Here are detailed explanations of more than five landmark cases on attempt to suicide and decriminalization:
(i) Maruti Shripati Dubal v. State of Maharashtra (1987)
Facts: A police constable, Maruti Dubal, attempted to commit suicide. He was charged under Section 309 IPC.
Issue: Whether Section 309 IPC is constitutional.
Held (Bombay High Court):
Section 309 IPC violates Article 21 (Right to Life) of the Constitution.
The court stated that the “right to life” also includes the “right to die” in certain circumstances.
It struck down Section 309 IPC as unconstitutional within Maharashtra.
Importance: This was one of the first cases in India where a High Court held Section 309 IPC unconstitutional.
(ii) P. Rathinam v. Union of India (1994)
Facts: Public interest litigation challenged the validity of Section 309 IPC.
Issue: Whether Section 309 IPC is violative of Article 21.
Held (Supreme Court):
A Division Bench held that Section 309 IPC is unconstitutional.
It ruled that “right to life” under Article 21 also includes “right to die.”
Therefore, a person attempting suicide cannot be punished.
Importance: The Supreme Court endorsed the Bombay HC view and temporarily invalidated Section 309 IPC across India.
(iii) Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996)
Facts: The accused couple abetted their daughter-in-law’s suicide and were convicted under Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide). They challenged their conviction citing P. Rathinam judgment.
Issue: Whether “right to life” under Article 21 includes “right to die” and thus invalidates Section 306 and 309 IPC.
Held (Five-Judge Bench of Supreme Court):
Overruled P. Rathinam.
Held that right to life does NOT include right to die.
Section 309 IPC is constitutional and valid.
However, it noted that the right to die with dignity (in the context of euthanasia) is a separate issue.
Importance: Section 309 IPC was restored and attempts to suicide remained punishable.
(iv) Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011)
Facts: Aruna Shanbaug was in a permanent vegetative state for decades after being sexually assaulted. A petition was filed seeking permission for passive euthanasia (withdrawal of life support).
Held (Supreme Court):
Allowed passive euthanasia under strict safeguards but not active euthanasia.
Distinguished between right to die (not allowed) and right to die with dignity (in certain circumstances).
Importance: While not directly about Section 309 IPC, this case significantly shaped the debate about “right to die” and influenced the Mental Healthcare Act.
(v) Common Cause v. Union of India (2018)
Facts: A petition sought recognition of “living wills” and the right to die with dignity.
Held (Constitution Bench of SC):
Recognized the right to die with dignity as part of Article 21.
Validated “advance directives” (living wills) for terminally ill patients.
Importance: Strengthened the principle that punishing suicide attempts is unjust and paved the way for decriminalization under MHA 2017.
(vi) Raj Kumar v. State of UP (2018, Allahabad HC)
Facts: Raj Kumar attempted suicide after severe stress and was charged under Section 309 IPC.
Held: The High Court quashed the FIR, citing Section 115 of the Mental Healthcare Act 2017, stating that a person attempting suicide should be presumed to have severe stress and cannot be punished.
Importance: Practical application of the Mental Healthcare Act to protect individuals from criminal prosecution.
4. Present Position
Section 309 IPC still exists, but because of Section 115 MHA 2017, its use is extremely limited.
Now, the focus is on treatment and rehabilitation, not punishment.
5. Summary Table
| Case Name | Year | Key Holding |
|---|---|---|
| Maruti Shripati Dubal v. State of Maharashtra | 1987 | Section 309 IPC unconstitutional (Bombay HC) |
| P. Rathinam v. Union of India | 1994 | SC held Section 309 IPC unconstitutional |
| Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab | 1996 | SC upheld Section 309 IPC as constitutional |
| Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India | 2011 | Passive euthanasia allowed under strict conditions |
| Common Cause v. Union of India | 2018 | Right to die with dignity recognized; living wills allowed |
| Raj Kumar v. State of UP | 2018 | Attempted suicide protected under MHA 2017 |
RELATED Blog
0 comments