Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
ABSTRACT
Attempted suicide is a serious problem requiring mental health interventions, but it continues to be treated under criminal offense under of the Indian Penal Code. Article focuses on the legal viewpoint of an attempt to suicide and the right to die to discuss the unintentional consequences of IPC it also talks about the euthanasia and rights to life and also highlights the need for the decriminalization of attempted suicide in India with different case laws. The Mental Health Care Bill, 2013, still under consideration in the Rajya Sabha, so that attempted suicide should not be criminally prosecuted rather should retain in the possession of rehabilitation center.
INTRODUCTION
Suicide is an act of intentionally causing one’s death and the reason is mental disorders, including depression, anxiety, alcoholism, drugs, etc. life is so wonderful that God could ever give us, but still some people commit suicide and end their life, results show that most of the people who commit suicide are young students because of lack in proper guidance, instruction, teaching, counseling they without thinking about their parents/guardians or their life just commit suicide. Some teenagers commit suicide because of moronic reasons.
Ending life is a very big step, suicide happens daily, we read every day in the newspaper people committing suicide and a family’s life gets changed. The risk of suicide increases dramatically when there is access to the firearm, pesticide poison or hanging and most of the suicide is committed with a gun. Some other means of committing suicide are overdosing of medicines always keep track of medicines you take or your parents and for old people. Teen suicide is preventable as they have their family members their friends who support them but for old people sometimes it is very difficult to understand their situation their difficulties and their problem and because of that they started having depression and other mental illnesses.
Suicide resulted in “826,500” global deaths in 2015, an increase in “710,000” deaths in 1990. This makes suicide the 10th leading cause of death worldwide. Approximately 0.5% of people die by suicide. Suicide is generally most common among the age of 70 however, in certain countries, those aged between 15 and 30 are at the highest risk. As per the record, Europe had the highest rates of suicide by region in 2015. Every year estimated 10 to 20 million non-fatal attempted suicides were recorded. Non-fatal suicide attempts mean accidents, illness or any injury which does not lead to the death of a person. In Western countries, suicidal attempts are more common among young people and females. Suicides have been influenced by broad existential themes such as honour, religion and the meaning of life. The Abrahamic religions traditionally consider suicide as an offense towards God, due to the belief in the spirituality of life. Sati system was followed where it was expected that the Indian widow has to sacrifice her life on her husband’s funeral fire, either willingly or under pressure from her family and society. in most western countries suicide was not illegal but after the 20th and 21st centuries, It is a criminal offense in many countries.
In India, suicide is illegal as abetment to suicide and attempt to suicide are both criminal offenses and are punishable. In 1994 constitutional validity of IPC Section 309 was challenged in the Supreme Court and declared IPC Section 309 is unconstitutional under Article 21 of the Indian constitution: – Right to life. i.e. the right to life of the Indian constitution. The court held that the right to life under Article 21 of the constitution does not include the right to die and attempt to suicide and abetment of suicide becomes an illegal and punishable offense.
I. Right to die
The term right to die refers to the issue where a person who has untreatable sickness, or who is facing a surviving death, should be allowed to end his life on his own terms.
Right to die is a concept on the view that individual is entitled to end his own life; the term ‘Right to die’ refers to all the possible decisions that every decision of whether or not individual should be allowed to die before their natural end his life. For example, a person who is suffering from cancer or any long-term sickness where the sickness gradually increases ends his life. Or if any other situation where a person is stuck in a long-term coma with no serious possibility of his ever regaining consciousness, then in this possible case, the family has all the right to take all possible decision to end his life prematurely as the person was unable to make the decision on his own.
• Right to life include Right to die?
Article 21 and Section 306 and 309
The Indian constitution underneath Article 21 provides the Right to Life as the basic fundamental and elementary right of each citizen. The Right to Life has been munificently taken to mean something more than mere survival and mere animal existence. The Supreme Court has declared that Article 21 is the core and heart of the elemental Rights provided underneath part III of the constitution. The Supreme Court has declared that to treat a right as an elementary and fundamental one it’s not obligatory that it ought to be expressly declared as an elementary or fundamental right. In India ‘The Right to Life’ of the Constitution has received the widest potential interpretation underneath the in a position hand of the judiciary and justified, therefore.
On the grounds as referenced, Article 21 doesn’t have prohibitive importance and should be translated comprehensively. This attests if Article 21 gives on an individual the privilege to carry on with a stately life, it ought to give the ‘Right to Die’ likewise, however, the consideration of Right beyond words Article 21 repudiate the arrangement of Indian Penal Code under area 309. As per segment, Section 309 – “Whoever attempts to commit suicide and does any act towards the commission of such offense, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine, or with both”. This section depends on the rule that the lives of men are important to them as well as to the state which protects them.
By considering both the provision of I.P.C. and laws opposing the major right ensured under he Indian Constitution. The state’s power under Section 309, I.P.C. to punish a man for trying to end his life by suiciding is addressed not only on the grounds of ethical quality but additionally on the constitutionality of the said arrangement. A great deal of clashing sentiments has been given on the desirability of holding or abrogating Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code in light of some differentiating judgment given by the courts.
• Euthanasia
As already noted, some theorist has argued that the individual need to have the right to dispose of his body in any manner he likes. Some individuals state that the act of self-destruction was a perfect manner of attainment freedom from all the sufferings the world had to offer. These contentions are with regards to certain strictly recognized self-obliterations, the soul of saints and warriors who consider their objects more significant than their very own life. Such cases have consistently been admitted and even respected. On these lines the destruction of life went for the advancement of self or the society has systematically been supported and has been denounced providing it’s for a few poor purposes, because of destruction in life or escapist propensity of man.
In modern society the traditional existence of people has prolonged, medical science has controlled numerous incompetent sicknesses, even at the same time; there are a few situations where medicinal science is of no help. In specific cases of untreatable diseases, old age or serious injury an individual suffers a great deal and can’t be relieved.
He struggles forever, however, the chances of survival are nil. The person suffers a lot of difficulties in life and because of which person isn’t able to enjoy his life. Such circumstances have led to concern in the legalization of wilful killing. Some people believe that wilful killing is ‘suicide by proxy’ and suicide isn’t an offense in many parts of the world. So, euthanasia should be legalized so that the person who is suffering can die with pride.
II. Legal control of suicide
During old times the legal position of suicide was not clear. A few types of suicide were respected, and others were denounced. The criminal law took all types of the implosion of life under its breadth and the differentiation of praiseworthy structures and the condemnable types of suicide got demolished. The criminal law built up a rule that according to the law lives of men are important to them as well as significant to the State which secures them and that the State owes its reality for the insurance of the lives of the person. Therefore, the State insures people from taking their own lives, as much as they ensure them from killing and taking the lives of the others.
The attitude of the courts has been very sympathetic towards the accused both in the manner of conviction and award of punishment in case of attempted suicide. While As to the award of punishment the judicial view has been very balanced and in keeping with the opinion and sentiments of the society.
• Case laws
1. Maruti shripati dubgal v. State of Maharashtra 1987
First time in the eye of the court, court observed that whether an individual has a privilege to die. The facts of the case are that the applicant, a police constable, who met with a road accident and suffers serious head injuries and became mentally ill, because of which he tried to commit suicide outside the office of municipal commissioner by pouring kerosene on himself but he failed and was charged under the Section 309 of I.P.C. In 1987, the Division Bench of Bombay High Court struck down sec 309, I.P.C., as ultra vires vide Article 14 and 21 of the constitution which ensures ‘right to life and personal liberty’. The court said the ‘right to life’ incorporates ‘right to live’ just as ‘right to end one’s life’ on the off chance that one so wants.
Court said that, the individuals who attempt to suicide by virtue of mental illness than he requires mental treatment rather to give the person punishment they should retain in the rehabilitation center for their treatment and not restring in the jail where their condition will definitely be worst and prompting further mental disturbance.
2. State v. Sanjay Kumar Bhatiya 1986
In this case, court also observed that while releasing a youngster who attempted to end his life by expending poison emphatically pushed for cancellation of Section 309, I.P.C. from the statute book and held that “the continuance of Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code is an anachronism unworthy of human society like ours. They also observed that medical clinics are needed for social misfits rather than socializing with prisoners.
3. P. Rathinam v. Union of India 1994
In this case the two applicants argued upon the legality of Section 309 by arguing the identical arguments which are violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and the petition was to state as void. However Supreme Court overruled the Andhra Pradesh High Court Judgment by fighting that the Section 309 is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the constitution. While striking down Section 309, I.P.C. the Court said ‘it is cruel and irrational provision violative of Article 21 of the constitution.’ the scope of Article 21, the court upheld that, ‘right to life’ include ‘right not to live a forced life’; i.e., to take one’s life if one wants it. The court proceeded to state that- the consequence in that the person may be punished twice who has already suffered agony and humiliation because of his failure to commit suicide. The act of suicide cannot be said to be against religion, morality or public policy as an attempted suicide has not destructive effect on society.
4. GianKaur v. State of Punjab 1996
In 1996, a five judge Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court containing Justices J.S. Verma, G.N. Beam, N.P. Singh, Faizauddin and G.T. Nanawati overruled its choices of 1994 in P. Rathinam/NaghbhusanPatnaik and maintained the constitutionality of Section 309.
The appealing party and her husband were accused by the Trial Court under Section 306, I.P.C. for abetting the commission of suicide by KulwantKaur. In special leave under the steady gaze of the Apex Court the conviction of the litigant has been challenged, inter alia on the ground that Section 306 I.P.C.is illegal in perspective on Judgment in 1944, wherein Section 309 I.P.C. has been held to be illegal as violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court while dismissing the request held that the ‘right to life’ is inalienably conflicting with the ‘right to die’ as is ‘death’ with ‘life’. In furtherance, the right to life, which includes right to live with human pride, which mean the presence of such a right up to the natural end of life. It might further include ‘death with dignity’ however such presence ought not be mistaken for unnatural presence of life shortening common range of life.
In movement of the above mentioned, the legality of segment 309 of the I.P.C. which makes ‘attempt to suicide’ an offense, was maintained, overruling the judgment given by P. Rathinam’s case.
“The Apex Court additionally held that Section 306, I.P.C. as constitutional and said that ‘right to life’ does exclude ‘right to die’. Termination of life is excluded in protection of life. The Court additionally proceeded to state that Section 306 comprise a offense and can exist freely of Section 309, I.P.C. As respects Section 309, I.P.C. is concerned, the court said that the’ right to life’ ensured under Article 21 of the Constitution did exclude the ‘right to be killed’ or ‘right to die’ and in this manner an endeavor to end it all under area 309, I.P.C. or on the other hand even abetment of suicide under area 306, I.P.C., are well inside the established commanded, and are not void or ultra vires.”
The Court said – “Article 21 is a provision guaranteeing protection of life and personal liberty and by no stretch of imagination can ‘extinction of life’ be read to be included in ‘protection of life’ whatever may be the philosophy of permitting a person to extinguish his life by committing suicide, it is difficult to construe Article 21 to include within its ambit the ‘right to die’ as a part of the Fundamental Right guaranteed therein. ‘Right to life’ is a natural right embodied in Article 21, but suicide is an unnatural termination or extinction of life and therefore incompatible and inconsistent with the concept of ‘right to life’.”
Common cause case
On 25 February 2014, a PIL was filed by NGO, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India observed that the judgment in Aruna Shanbaug case was based on a wrong understanding of the constitution bench judgment in Gian Kaur v. the State of Punjab. The court observed that the judgment in inconsistent in itself as though it observes that euthanasia can be allowed only by legislature yet it goes on to lay down guidelines on the same.
Therefore, the court has referred the issue to a constitution bench consist of a five-judge bench. The court observed that:- In view of the inconsistent opinions rendered in Aruna Shanbaug (supra) and also considering the important question of law involved which needs to be reflected in the light of social, legal, medical and constitutional perspective, it becomes extremely important to have a clear enunciation of law. Thus, in our cogent opinion, the question of law involved requires careful consideration by a Constitution Bench of this Court for the benefit of humanity as a whole.
The Five-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether Article 21 of the Constitution includes in its ambit the right to die with dignity by means of executing a living wills/advance directives.
Conclusion
In 1996 the issue was raised in Gian Kaur case that had ruled that the right to life didn’t include the right to die. This 22-year-old Judgment said that the right to live with dignity could not be constructed to include the right to terminate natural life. Section 309 of IPC provides that ‘whoever attempts to commit suicide and does any act to the commission of such offense, shall be punished with fine and simple imprisonment for a term which can reach one year or with each
BJP in 2016 moved a private member’s bill in parliament proposed to decriminalize suicide except where it was intended to incite public anger and create a law and order situation. It was said that parliament had already made an exception to Section 309 while enacting mental healthcare act 2017 Section 115(1) of the act provides’ however something contained in Section 309 of IPC any individual World Health Organization tries to kill shall be presumed, unless proved otherwise, to have severe stress and shall not be tried and punished under this said code. ‘however, this applied only to those suffering from mental illness
Justice Chandrachaud also referred to Section 115(2) of the mental healthcare act which mandates the government to provide care, treatment and rehabilitation to a person having severe stress and who tried to kill, to scale back the danger of return, it removes the component of blameworthiness that attaches to an endeavour to kill beneath Section 309 of IPC.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.