A case to decriminalise suicide

CONTEXT

According to the World Health Organization, India has the highest suicide rate in the Southeast Asian region.
According to the National Crime Records Bureau, a total of 1,34,516 cases of suicide were reported in 2018 in India, While the rate of suicide was 9.9 in 2017, it increased to 10.2 in 2018.
Depression, chronic ill health, guilt, trauma, substance abuse, failure in exams, and loss of loved ones are some of the reasons leading to suicide in India.

NEED FOR DECRIMINALISATION

India has retained much of the colonial legal legacy in its penal jurisprudence.
Hence, Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code dictates the penal provision for attempting suicide, making suicide as illegal.
But the fact is that the, even British Parliament have decriminalised attempts to suicide in 1961 through the Suicide Act.
In India, a Bill to repeal Section 309 was first introduced in the Rajya Sabha in 1972 but it failed to pass in the Lok Sabha because the House was dissolved.

DEMANDS IN FAVOUR TO DECRIMINALISED SUICIDE

Those who argue that the act of attempting suicide should not be criminalised quote Maruti Shripati Dubal v. State of Maharashtra (1986).
- In this judgment, the Bombay High Court declared Section 309 unconstitutional.
- It said: “For example, the freedom of speech and expression includes freedom not to speak and to remain silent. The freedom of association and movement likewise includes the freedom not to join any association or to move anywhere… If this is so, logically it must follow that right to live… will also include a right not to live or not to be forced to live.”
- The court also said: “If the purpose of the prescribed punishment is to prevent the prospective suicides by deterrence, which cannot be achieved by punishing those who have made the attempts.
Those who make the suicide attempt on account of the mental disorders require psychiatric treatment and not confinement in prison cells.”
In Chenna Jagadeeswar v. State of Andhra Pradesh and P. Rathinam v. Union of India (1994) where the court held that Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code is a violation of Articles 14 and 21 and is void and unconstitutional.

INFAVOUR OF PENALISE SUICIDE

Those who favour the penal provision generally quote the judgment in Gian Kaur V. State of Punjab (1996).
- In this judgment the court held that “right to life is a natural right embodied in Article 21” of the Constitution but “suicide is an unnatural termination or extinction of life and, therefore, incompatible and inconsistent with the concept of right to life”.
- Further in Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011), the Supreme Court endorsed the earlier judgment.

ATTEMPTS MADE

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.”

ISSUES WITH THE ACT PASSED

The law applies only to those suffering from mental illness.
Though there is presumption of severe stress in case of an attempt to die by suicide, but what if severe stress is not proved?

CONCLUSION

We have to shift from penalising attempts to suicide to making such cases medico-legal ones and provide psychological or mental treatment and support to the persons affected.
As the issue demands a reformative stance, we need a permanent solution like repealing Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code or striking it down.
Legislators should understand that, if a person is suffering from any mental trauma or illness, he or she should be given reformative treatment rather than a deterrent punishment.

https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/a-case-to-decriminalise-suicide/article34893959.ece

Today Current Affairs Upsc Exam Syllabus & Previous Yearpaper.