Author- Shachi Singh, BBD University, Lucknow

KEYWORDS:

article 21 , article 14 , right to life , right to die , section 309 IPC , constitutional validity , attempt to suicide

CASE DETAILS

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The case includes two petitions at hand, demanding the Court to struck down the “Section309 of the Indian Penal Code” as unconstitutional and void because it  criminalises the attempt to suicide and sets punishment for the person who attempted to suicide. Through the criminalisation of the attempt to suicide the Section violated their fundamental rights given  under Article 14 and Article 21.

The “Right to Life and Personal liberty[1]”, which is given in “Part III Article21 of the Indian Constitution” is one of the major points discussed in the case as to whether it includes the “Right to Die” or not. The petitioners held that the Article 21 which gives them the right to live allows them to finish their meaningless and painful life which gives them nothing but pain and agony.

“Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code” was questioned in the case as it criminalises the attempt to suicide and sets punishment for the person. The section was seen to be punishing the person twice as they have already gone through pain and punishing them under this Section will give them pain again.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Procedural Background of the Case

The case includes  two petitions which were filed to question the validity of Section 309 and contended that the criminalisation of attempt to suicide under Section 309 was violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 and Article 21. Both the petitions at hand requested the court to declare Section 309 of IPC as constitutionally invalid and void. The additional prayer in “Writ Petition (Crl.) 419/87” sought to quash the proceedings initiated against the other petitioner (Nagbhusan) under Section 309 of the IPC.   

Factual Background of the Case

The petitioner tried to commit suicide due to some bad and uncontrollable situation due to which there was criminal proceeding brought  against him because Section 309 of Indian Penal Code criminalises the  attempt to suicide. The petitioners contended that the section was void and violated their fundamental rights.

LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code is violative of the fundamental rights ensured under Article 14 and Article 21of the Indian Constitution.
2. Whether the “Right to Life” given under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution includes the “Right to Die”.
3. Whether Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code is constitutionally invalid.

PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS

1. The counsels for Petitioner submitted that the criminalisation of the attempt to suicide under Section 309 of IPC, violates the fundamental right given under the Article 21 of the Constitution of India
2. The counsels argued that Section 309 also violates the right to equality given under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution by treating all the attempts to suicide likewise ignoring the circumstances or conditions  that has led  the individual to commit suicide.
3. The counsels for petitioner also argued that the fundamental “Right to Life” includes the “Right not to Live” or “Right to Die” because fundamental rights have both positive as well as negative aspect. They gave examples of rights which include the negative aspect as well, like the “Freedom of Association and Movement” includes “Freedom not to join any Association or to Move anywhere” and the “Freedom of Business” includes the “Freedom not to do any Business” the “Right to Life” also includes the “Right not to live” in the same way.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. 1. The counsels for Respondent submitted that act of attempt to suicide is against public policy (as their main point of argument) as it jeopardises the government’s duty of preservation of human life.
   2. The counsels for Respondent submitted that Section 309 does not violate Article 21 as the Article guarantees the right to life and personal liberty and not to the end of life or its destruction by the people.
   3. The counsels on behalf of the Union of India argued that Section 309 does not violate the Article 14 by treating all the attempts of suicide likewise because it does take in consideration the nature, extent and gravity of the attempt to suicide while giving the punishment or sentence.
   4. The counsels also argued that Section 309 cannot be held unconstitutional and void due to criminalizing the attempt to suicide because it is the duty of the government to protect the guaranteed fundamental rights and hence it is a duty of the State to protect life of every individual.

RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

1. 1. “Article 14: Equality before law: The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India”.[2]
   2. “Article 21: Protection of Life and Personal Liberty: No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”.[3]
   3. “Section 309 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860: Attempt to commit suicide. —Whoever attempts to commit suicide and does any act towards the commission of such offence, shall he punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine, or with both”[4].

JUDGEMENT

RATIO DECIDENDI

1. The Court held that the fundamental right to life and personal liberty was violated by the criminalisation of attempt to suicide through the Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The Court held the Section 309 which criminalises the attempt to suicide, as unconstitutional and void and it must be removed from the Statute to hold the humanitarian aspect of our laws as the Section 309 is a cruel and irrational provision, as it may punish the person again who has suffered pain once and would go through pain once again because of his failure to commit suicide.
3. The Court also held that the “act of suicide or attempt to suicide” is not against any religion, public policy or the concept of morality. Further, it was noted that the act to commit suicide causes no harm to others and hence the government’s interference with an individual’s right to life and personal liberty cannot be justified.
4. “The writ petitions stand allowed by declaring Section 309 of the Penal code as unconstitutional and hence void. The proceedings in GR case No. 177 of 1984 State v. Nagbhushan Patnaik, pending in the Court of Sub-Judge, Guntur in the district of Koraput, Orissa stands quashed”.

OVERRULING JUDGMENTS

The court overruled the judgement of Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in C.Jagadeeswar V. State of Andhra Pradesh (1983) [5], in which the Bench held that the section309 of the IPC was not violative of the Articles 21 and Article 14 of the Indian Constitution and hence was valid and constitutional.

OBITER DICTA

1. The court noted that the concept of public policy is vague and uncertain, because of which it should not be used as a ground during judicial decisions as it leads to uncertainty and ambiguity.
2. The court mentioned about the mental health of the person committing suicide and held that rather than punishing the person and sending them to jail they should send them to psychiatric clinic.
3. The criminalisation of attempt to suicide was held anachronistic to the modern society which has votaries of euthanasia.

CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgement given in this case is a landmark in the cases involving act and attempt to suicide as it decriminalises the “attempt to suicide” and held the Section 309 as unconstitutional and violative of fundamental rights enshrined under Article14 and Article21. It prioritises the mental health of the individual which led them to take such a step and underlines the need for psychiatric help and consultations by sending the individual to psychiatric clinic instead of jail to mingle with criminals.   

[1] Article 21 of The Constitution of India

[2] Article 14 of The Constitution of India

[3] Article 21 of The Constitution of India

[4] Section 309, Indian Penal Code,1860

[5] C.Jagadeeswar V. State of Andhra Pradesh (1983) Crl. Law Journal 549