Supreme Court of India (File photo)
NEW DELHI: In the event that the survivor of a suicide attempt is punished under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code or be carefully rehabilitated by the government under Section 115 of the Mental Health Act? Which of the two provisions is constitutionally sound, the Supreme Court tried to find out from the Center on Friday.
Acting at the request of an animal rights NGO seeking measures to prevent people attempting suicide by jumping into animal enclosures at zoos, a bench by Chief Justice SA Bobde and Justices AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian said who had noticed the dichotomy between Section 309 of the IPC and Section 115 of the MH Act and asked the attorney general Tushar mehta for a response from the Center.
The SC said that this dichotomy would be addressed alongside the pending question of proving the constitutional validity of article 309. The debate on the ethics and legality of punishing survivors of suicide attempts has led to various jurisdictions worldwide decriminalizing the crime, which continues to be punished by the 160-year-old CPI. However, in 2018, the CS, in a landmark ruling, had said that its 1996 ruling in the Gian Kaur case that said that “the right to live with dignity did not include the right to die” required reconsideration.
Although Section 309 of the IPC provided that “whoever attempts to commit suicide and performs any act for the commission of said crime will be sanctioned with a simple prison sentence for a period that can be extended to one year”, Section 115 of the MH Law It reads: “Notwithstanding the content of Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, any person who attempts suicide shall be presumed, unless proven otherwise, to be under severe stress and will not be judged or punished under such code “.
Section 115 (2) adds: “The appropriate government shall have a duty to provide care, treatment, and rehabilitation to a person experiencing severe stress and attempting suicide to reduce the risk of a repeat suicide attempt.”
The court order read: “Issue notice to the attorney general, asking the Union of India to justify the validity of Section 115 of the Mental Health Act 2017, which virtually negates Section 309 of the IPC.” The CV appointed lead attorney ANS Nadkarni as amicus curiae to help the court.
On March 9, 2018, a constitutional court of five judges had allowed euthanasia for those who are in a vegetative state and had a validated “living will”. One of the judges on the stand, Judge DY Chandrachud, had said that the punishment for failed suicide attempt “may require future review in light of national and international developments that point towards decriminalizing suicide.”
He had said: “(The MH Law) considers a person who attempts to commit suicide as a victim of circumstances and not as a criminal, at least in the absence of evidence to the contrary, whose burden should fall on the prosecution. Article 115 marks a change pronounced in our law on how society should treat and attempt suicide. It seeks to align Indian law with emerging knowledge about suicide, treating a person attempting suicide as a need for care, treatment and rehabilitation rather than criminal penalties. ” He said that the question of whether the right to life includes the right to die should be decided in separate proceedings.
.
