Throughout history, suicide has been condemned by various societies. Since the Middle Ages, society has used the criminal law to combat suicide but following the French Revolution of 1789 criminal penalties for attempting to commit suicide were abolished in European countries.

In India, however, attempt to suicide remains a punishable offence according to section 309 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 309 reads thus:

Attempt to commit suicide- “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 constitutional validity of Section 309 has been challenged many times in the Supreme Court and the various High Courts. It has been argued that it violates the fundamental right to life as guaranteed by the Indian Constitution under Article 21. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution reads thus:

Right to Life and Personal Liberty- “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” In the case of State v. Sanjay Kumar Bhatia, the Delhi High Court observed that, “the continuance of Section 309, I.P.C. is ananachronism unworthy of a human society like ours.” The Court also observed that, “need is for humane, civilized and socially oriented outlook and penology.” The court further observed that a man, who is driven to such frustration, that he is willing to take his own life, should be sent to a psychiatric clinic rather than a jail to mingle with criminals.

In the case of P. Rathinam v. Union of India, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court also held that section 309, IPC violates Article 21, as the right to live of which the said Article speaks of, can be said to bring in its trail the right to not live a forced life.

It further observed that, “section 309 of the Indian Penal Code deserves to be effaced from the statute book to humanize our penal laws. It is a cruel and irrational provision, and it may result in punishing a person again (doubly) who has suffered agony and would be undergoing ignominy because of his failure to commit suicide.”

These three judicial decisions were instrumental in challenging the constitutional validity of Section 309, but they were overruled by the Supreme Court through its landmark judgment in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab.

In this case, the Honourable Supreme Court held that Article 21 cannot be construed to include within it, the ‘right to die’ as a part of the fundamental right guaranteed therein, and therefore, section 309, I.P.C. cannot be considered as violative of Article 21. However, it is significant to note that the Supreme Court in Gian Kaur took into consideration, only the constitutional validity of Section 309 and not the wisdom of retaining or continuing the said provision in the statute.

The law ignored the fact that a person attempts to commit suicide for various reasons, which at times, are beyond his control and therefore, the deletion of section 309 is not an invitation or encouragement to commit suicide. The Law Commission of India has undertaken revision of the Indian Penal Code. The 5th Law Commission, headed by K.V.K. Sundaram, submitted the 42nd Law Commission Report. The Commission recommended, inter alia, repeal of section309. The Indian Penal Code (Amendment) Bill, 1978, as passed by the Rajya Sabha, accordingly provided for omission of section 309. However, before the Lok Sabha could have passed this bill, the Lok Sabha was dissolved and the Bill lapsed.

The 18th Law Commission, headed by A.R. Lakshmanan, submitted the 210th Law Commission Report. The report was titled “Humanization and Decriminalization of Attempt to Suicide”. It contained a detailed analysis about the issue and again recommended repeal of Section 309 from the Indian Penal Code.

The report also said that it was very important to understand that suicide is a not a manifestation of criminal instinct. There is no mensrea. To take care of suicide-prone persons, wise counseling of a psychiatrist is needed, and not harsh treatment by a jailor.

I feel that it is illogical and insensitive to treat attempted suicide as a crime. It is illogical because attempted suicide becomes a crime for which the law can’t punish you if you are successful, but can, if you are not. It is insensitive because it inflicts further punishment on a person when he or she is in need of support and encouragement. Therefore, the law should be amended to decriminalize attempted suicide.

Those who attempt suicide on account of mental disorders need psychiatric treatment and not confinement in the prison cells where their mental condition is bound to worsen. Counselling facilities like counselling centers, counselling helplines and etc. should be set up for them. On the other hand, those who attempt suicide on account of physical ailments, diseases, decrepit physical state induced by old age or disablement need nursing homes and not prisons to prevent them from making such attempts again.

Therefore, it is very essential that the lawmakers of this country should deal with the subject in a very cautious manner after considering in detail its future implications.