Suicide Dilemma
Suicide is an act by an individual to take his own life as he does not wish to live in this word due to a number of reasons. Suicide is treated as an offence under the Indian penal code section 309. It is probably the only offence in the IPC in which no action can be taken or punishment given to the person if he is successful, just because he is no longer alive, but if he fails or is saved then besides being treated as a criminal he is liable to be punished by the state and treated as a criminal. The trauma to the family and the stigma attached to the family and individual is given by the society as an added bonus. Section 309 of Indian Penal Code states 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.”
The dilemma at present lies in the treatment of suicide by the society and under the law. On one hand the government wants the citizens to live by guaranteeing the right to life under article 21 of the Constitution of India but if one does commit suicide then he gets sympathy and maybe in some cases respect by the society but in case he survives the attempt to suicide due to any reason then the governments tries to punish him for trying and even ostracizes him from the society. Even with the altered legal implications regarding suicide as given in section 115(1) of the Mental Healthcare Act 2017 the act remains highly stigmatized and misunderstood, meaning those who survive offer suffer ignominious lives.
At present as it stands only the state has a right to take lives whether on orders by court or in special circumstances or in case of waging war against another state and tries to control the lives of its citizens except guaranteeing some fundamental rights including right to life but prosecute its citizens when they wish to exercise their freedom to end their own lives and punishes them rather than trying to understand and make efforts to remove those circumstances or reasons as to why a person decides to end his life. The reasons could be varied from external, failure in life or job, internal pressures from family and their expectations, suffering from terminal disease or even mental illness. If a person takes live of another person then he is labeled as a murderer and if he takes his own life then he is treated as a coward and ostracized. Birth and death both subject are subject to state regulation and remain beyond individual control. Section 309 implies that only the state has the authority to legally take life and exert control over the body in other ways as well.
Section 309 of the Indian Penal code criminalizes the suicide and this is where the dilemma lies because Article 21 of the constitution of India guarantees the fundamental right to life. In its 42 nd report the law commission of India recommended the repeal of section 309 of IPC but the government did not accept this report. In 1978 the Janta government brought a bill to implement the recommendations and it was passed by Rajya Sabha but not by Lok Sabha as it was dissolved before passing the bill and the bill lapsed.
The Delhi High Court in its 1985 judgment dubbed the section as” An anchroronism unworthy of humane society like ours.” The Andhra high court in 1988 however upheld the provision. Bombay High Court in 1987 on the question of individual right declared section 309 of the IPC as unconstitutional. It said that the freedom of speech and expression includes freedom of not to speak and to remain silent, the freedom of association and movement likewise include the freedom not to join any association or not to move anywhere. If these observations are correct then logically it must follow that the right to life by article 21 will include the right not to live or not to be forced to live.
In 1996 a two Judge bench of the Supreme Court observed that “Any person abetting the commission of suicide by another is merely assisting in the enforcement of the fundamental rights under article 21.” But a five judge bench overruled he two judge bench in 1996 and declared section 309 as constitutional. The court also rejected the argument of Right to die and said that Right to Life is a natural right embodied in article 21 but suicide is an unnatural termination of extinction of life and therefore incompatible and inconsistent with right to life.
The Law commission’s report of 1997 recommended the retention of section 309. It took law commission another decade to recommend the repeal of section 309 of IPC in 2008 in its 210th report. In December 2014 the government told the parliament that it has been decided to repeal IPC section 309. But this is yet to happen even though the new act on Mental Healthcare Act 2017 in its section 115(1) exempts suicide attempt survivors from the ambit of section 309 IPC presuming unless proven otherwise that they “Have severe Stress”.
Section 115(1) of the Mental Healthcare Act 2017 state that:-
“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.”
The moot point is that, is it the individual who has a right over his life and body or it is the state. Certainly the data suggests that even in the diluted section 309, individuals retain some right to their bodies although the state claims ownership rather than an individual. The state under the fundamental rights in article 21 guarantees right to life and in various judgment the Supreme Court has reiterated that the right to life include right to enjoy it peacefully. Therefore, it stands to reason that it is the duty of state and society to safeguard the peaceful enjoyment of life without any tension, stress or any external or internal factors. The state has to create an environment, facilities, and conditions in the society so that an individual is free from stress to enjoy his life peacefully and does not end up taking his own life.
