Suicide: Should It Be Decriminalized?

What Is Suicide?

Suicide is alluded to as the demonstration of self-murdering or killing oneself. It’s anything but a deliberate demonstration whereby the individual finishes his/her life to get away from the tragedies they face. While there can be numerous reasons which push somebody to take their life, the underlying reason follows pressure. 

According to the reports of the World Health Organization, almost 8 million bite the dust because of suicide which is one individual like clockwork.

As indicated by the Accidental Deaths and Suicides in India report made by the National Crime Records Bureau, there were 130,000 suicides in India in 2015 and in 2012 the territory of Tamil Nadu reported 12.5% suicides, the most noteworthy per cent followed by Maharashtra.

This article will zero in on the legal aspects of Suicide in India noting hypothetical issues that emerge from the decriminalization of endeavored suicide.

Decriminalization Of Suicide

Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code declares that attempting suicide is a crime and the survivor is rebuffed likewise. The arrangement peruses as; 

“Attempt to end it all: Whoever attempts to end it all and does any act towards the commission of such offense, will be rebuffed with straightforward detainment for a term which may reach out to one year or with fine, or with both.” 

India has held and saved numerous laws enacted during the British Raj even after freedom in 1947. Section 309 is one such which was held notwithstanding the fact that the British parliament itself decriminalized attempted suicide in 1961 through the Suicide Act. The Law Commission of India attempted to update IPC alongside other focal acts and because of which it suggested cancelling section 309.

“We are, in any case, certainly of the view that the penal arrangement is unforgiving and baseless and it ought to be cancelled”. 

The Bill to revoke this was presented in Rajya Sabha in 1972 however it neglected to go through Lok Sabha as the house was broken up then, at that point, slipping by the bill. Afterwards, the Law Commission in its 210th report suggested that “Section 309 should be destroyed from the resolution book in light of the fact that the arrangement is barbaric, independent of whether it is established or illegal, the offense of attempt to end it all under Section 309 should be excluded from the Indian Penal Code.

It said, “Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code gives twofold discipline to an individual who has effectively got tired of his own life and wants to end it.” 

Finally, by the Mental Health Care Act 2017, which started in 2018, the extent of section 309 was restricted without revoking it from IPC. The relevant arrangement peruses as,

“Despite anything contained in Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code any individual who attempts to perpetrate suicide will be assumed, except if demonstrated something else, to have serious pressure and will not be attempted and rebuffed under the said Code.”

India has now decriminalized the attempt to carry out suicide and perspectives the issue as one requiring treatment instead of discipline. 

Case Laws And Arguments

This proposition was overruled in Smt. Gian Kaur v. Province of Punjab. The Supreme Court held that the right to life is a characteristic right while suicide is an unnatural elimination of life and consequently the last is conflicting with the previous. Aspects that are as per and will add on to existence with dignity can be added something extra to Article 21 and not those which quenches it. The court in this way maintained the constitutional validity of Section 309. 

Notwithstanding, as a special case for this, the Apex Court in Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Association of India and Ors maintained the validity of Passive Euthanasia, assisted suicide, whereby the existence backing of a terminally sick patient is taken out or stopped.

Thus, to the extent India is thought of, the right to life does exclude the option to kick the bucket yet accommodates the “Right to pass on with dignity” which is facilitated by Passive Euthanasia just in specific circumstances allowed with the leave of the Supreme Court.

In Maruti Shripati Dubal v. Province of Maharashtra, the Bombay High Court decided that section 309 is unconstitutional as it violates Article 21. The court saw that when the opportunity to stay quiet exists simultaneously with the ability to speak freely and articulation, there additionally exist an option to die simultaneously with the right to life; the longing to die isn’t unnatural thus there exists an option to die.

Vedanshi Jalan

Vedanshi is currently pursuing her undergraduation in BBA focused in Law (BBA-LLB) from Xavier Law School, Bhubaneswar along with Company Secretaryship. A sagacious person with unequivocal vision, who aspires and strives to be a perfectionist.