Suicide as an act of self-harm is currently one of the major issue among the young-adult generation of 21st century. With more than 700,000 casualties every year, suicide as a fourth leading cause of death among 15-29 years old[1] is a serious and an intricate phenomenon to discuss and preclude. The desire and the commission of the actual act of self-harm has its complex bases among the psychological as well as sociological reasonings and explanations it carries.
While the current generation has progressed enough to realise the importance of and seriousness of peaceful mental health and unstable mind respectively, there are many issues which still question the rationale and ethics of human made laws and values. Among many such questionable principles and practices is the idea of criminalising the act of attempted suicide.
Jose Ortega y Gasset, a famous Spanish scholar and essayist has famously quoted,” Law is born from despair of human nature.” The despair here is the outcome of extreme emotions, desires and conflicting interests of human individuals. Law as a social engineering tool hence supposedly aims to practicalize the theory of utilitarianism via minimising the friction between these interests. However, sometimes the consciousness of benefitting the bigger half affects the minor whose aftershocks, sooner or later, are to be dealt by the whole population. Such is the effect of criminalising a sensitive act of attempted suicide.
Before the formulation of the Mental Health Care Act, 2018 India too was among more than a dozen countries who had anti-suicidal legislation punshing the attemptor by fines or imprisonment. Though the Act was a milestone and a progressive step in the Indian legal mechanism, the existence of Section 309 in IPC still creates confusion and uncertainty in the laws.
Therefore, this paper is an sincere attempt to first study the complexity of suicide, secondly to analyse the rationality behind criminalising the attempt to suicide (specifically in India), followed by an exploration on why complete decriminalisation is the need of the time.
SUICIDE AND ITS UNDERSTANDINGS
The etymological meaning of the word suicide dates back to 1650s as “deliberate killing of oneself,” from Modern Latin suicidium, where “sui” means “of oneself” and “cidium” means “a killing”.[2] Hence, the most general and straightforward definition of suicide is understood be an intentional harm inflicted upon oneself which ultimately result in death.
The act of suicide becomes an attempt to suicide when it lacks the completion factor. Any positive or negative action done with an intention of death as a result or a process that isn’t successful is the attempt to suicide. Hence, the expected element of lethalness is avoided.
The discussion of culpability of a suicide is very less prominent in comparison to the attempted suicide due to obvious reasons. Consequently, when considering individuals who attempt suicide, it raises the question of whether it is fair to penalize someone who is both the perpetrator and a victim of circumstances or hardships. However, before moving with that analysis it becomes crucial to generally understand the root of its occurrence.
The modern study of suicide began at the turn of the 20th century, with two main threads of investigation: the sociological, associated primarily with Emile Durkheim, and the psychological, linked mainly to Sigmund Freud.[3] Regardless of many other approaches to define and characterise people who attempt the act of killing oneself, evident before and after the above two proponents, the description from the sociological and psychoanalytic perspectives are the most popular and frequently discussed.
While defining suicide Durkheim argues suicide as a sociological phenomenon. According to him there is an undeniable relation between suicide rates and other social facts like economy, religion, age group, etc. He discusses four different kinds of suicide motivated by unbalanced social cohesion and social regulation, i.e. both attachment and control beyond or below a required threshold becomes a factor .[4]
Hence, this perspective explains the relation of an individual experience with the broader social structures as a reason behind the patterns of suicidal behaviour. For instance, a soldier sacrificing his life in a suicide attack is because of his high level of cohesion with the society and an individual having weaker bonds with the society, committing or attempting suicide, due to isolation is an example of low level of cohesion.
Similarly, people commiting suicide due to financial burdens or dependancy upon a master comes under the categorisation of social regulation affecting the patterns of life and death in human society.
The psychoanalytical description of suicide follows that the suicidal behavior seen in an individual is the result of underlying psychological conflicts, unresolved issues, and unconscious processes. Sigmund Freud speaks of three different components of human psyche, namely, the id, ego, and superego.[5] The id is driven by basic instincts and desires, the superego represents societal norms and values, and the ego mediates between the two. Suicidal tendencies, according to this perspective, may arise from conflicts between these psychic structures, or simply hate or aggression of an individual turned inward. For instance, a person experiencing intense inner conflicts, feelings of guilt, or unresolved childhood traumas may be more prone to suicidal thoughts or actions.
Similarly, the advancement in understanding neurobiology and behavior has led to the proposal that combination of genetic predisposition and exposure to stress can affect suicidal behavior,[6] too. Today, mental health issues and problems like depression, anxiety, mental illness, etc too are considered when discussing the causes of self harm. The understanding of suicide as an act has been varying throughout the human history and society, but suicide as a sensitive issue and a social problem to be eradicated or diminished has always remained constant.
The above understandings and other existing theories and perspective give only either a broader or a narrower definition of suicide. Since, the root of the intention to end one’s life involves multiple reasons ranging from psychological to social, can occur to and affect anyone irrespective of age, sex, gender or background, and requires a multifaceted approach to solve or deal with it, suicide is best understood as a multidimensional, multifactorial malaise.[7]
CRIMINALISING ATTEMPT TO SUICIDE: RATIONAL OR FLAWED REASONING?
Crime persists as an unavoidable element in human society. The existence of criminal behaviour, or actions contrary to societal norms, is observed even within the ranks of the most upright and saint society.[8] However, the interpretation of crime and criminal acts differs, as behaviour considered wrongful and illegal at a particular time and location might not be treated the same elsewhere. Hence, illegality of an act is the outcome of the beliefs, standards, and status the society has encountered, is currently experiencing, or will encounter.
Contemplating the above mentioned, the attempt to suicide is not a criminal offence in majority of the states, misdemeanor in few dozens and some are on the verge revising its legal status. This section will reflect on the reasons that potentially caused criminalization of attempted suicide behind in India.
The Influence
The current legal system of India is largely a result of the colonial era and hence many laws including Section 309 of IPC, which criminalised attempt to suicide were enacted by the British colonial authorities. Though United Kingdom has already decriminalised suicide way before, the provision still exists as an archaic laws in the Indian penal code as Attempt to commit suicide and states,[9]
“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 1 [or with fine, or with both.] ”
The laws then were much more influenced by the Victorian-era moral and religious perspectives prevalent in England. Hence, besides laws working as a effective tool of prohibition, the perspective of suicide as a deliberate killing and violation of the principle of sancity of life in Christianity and Catholicism were the motivating factors. Likewise prominent thinkers of that period like St. Augustine too condemned suicide as a “detestible and damnable wickedness”.[10] He argued that an act against the man’s natural instinct to love one self, which does injury to the community and impinges upon the province of God, is deemed to be unlawful. Therefore, with time suicide was counted as a twofold offence first spiritual against the almighty and second temporal against the king who has an interest on the preservation of the lives of all its subject.[11]
The understanding of suicide as an illegal act was never original to Indian belief system. The religious books and epics of the country connected death with the theories of “Nirvana ” and rejuvenation, i.e. a spiritual journey towards freedom from a vicious cycle of life. The tradition of self-sacrifice also finds prevalence in the mythologies of Lord Rama and the Mahabharata, where the act is portrayed as uncommon but not entirely outside the realm of possibility and legality.
Hence, anti-suicidal laws in India serves as an striking depiction of the transformative power of law in shaping the fabric of society.
The presumed deterrence
Laws are enacted with specific objectives in consistent with the societal requirements and control mechanism, and in case of anti-suicidal laws, they align with the deterrent theory of punishment, aiming primarily to prevent individuals from engaging in the acts forbidden by social conscience. The primary basis of this theory is the element of fear, which justifies that people tend to prevent certain acts due to fear of sanction or getting punished.
Hence the penal aspect of attempting suicide is presumed to let people know there are consequences to the action, which would eventually abstain people from committing it. However, the theory itself has a very weak basis, as the deterrence can never be fully measured as a result of the law. Further, it can only prevent individuals who are not fully determined to commit the act and hence has no effect on the ideation and the intention part of a mind. Indistiguably in case of attempted suicide, the WHO report[12] shows the decrease of attempted suicide when decriminalised instead of the criminalisation.
A suicide survivor is in need of assistance rather than punishment, to get out of their eleveted psychological and emotional distress. Punishing them will only push them away from seeking help, towards future attempts with higher determination.
The dilemma between Right to Life and Right to Die.
One of the striking debates that reserves its place in discussing self harm is the justification behind the Right to die. The Constitution of India under Article 21[13] guarantees Right to Life as
Protection of life and personal liberty No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
The discourse initiates questioning whether the provision of Right to Life is inclusive of the Right to die. And if it is, can the act of self harm be claimed as an fundamental and inalienable right, and if it isn’t, is the justification for penalising such actions valid?
In a landmark case P. Rathinam v Union of India[14] The supreme court established that just like the Right to Freedom of Speech accompanies both the Right to speak and the Right not to Speak, the Right to Live under Article 21 includes the Right to not live. The case law declared, Section 309 unconstitutional emphasising the autonomy of an individual and the inexplicit harm to other individuals of the society.
However, the precedent was overruled by Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab[15] which clarified that Article 21, is to be understood in the context of living a life with dignity which extends until natural death occurs. The concept of death within the Right to Life pertains to dying with dignity and should not be conflated with the unnatural termination of life. Confusing Right to live inclusive of Right not to live is a materialistic approach towards human life and spirits. Hence, the court justified the presence of Section 309 through this law. However, the Law Commission of India in its 21st Report declared Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code as inhuman stating that an attempt to commit suicide is a symbolic to a ‘diseased condition of the mind’.
Therefore, while individuals cannot assert an absolute right to control their own lives and be permitted to end them, the act of attempt should be met with well-researched and practical alternatives of treatment and care rather than unjust and inhuman treatment like punishment.
COMPLETE DECRIMINALISATION AS A WAY FORWARD
The status of suicide attempt in India was progressed after the enactment of Mental HealthCare Act, 2017 which under Sec 115[16] guarantees the presumption of severe stress in case of attempt to commit suicide and states duty to provide care, treatment and rehabilitation to a person, having severe stress and who attempted to commit suicide, to reduce the risk of recurrence of attempt to commit suicide. Though the mention provision is a milestone in the legal system of India, the prevalence of Section 309 in IPC is a major confusion and setback in the procedural part.
While some believe Section 309 carries no constitutional validity today, the stigma and treatment given to suicide victims are still pathethic. Hence, a repeal of the provision and complete decriminalisation becomes a need due to various reasons, some of which are discussed in this part.
Breaking Stigma, Encourage support
Unlike the ancient legal system, modern day laws have progressed beyond the conventional understanding of religion, divinity and power as the ultimate source of law. The understanding and acceptance of concepts relating to suicide prevention and mental health have now become a subject of discussion aiming progress and betterment of the one who suffer.
The stigmatisation of people with mental illness, unstable social life and sufferings are something that human society is to move forward from. The maintenance of status quo and holding onto archaic laws like attempt to suicide is not a characteristic of progressive society but a pathological state. If laws are not repealed and amended as per the change in societal belief and structure, laws are deemed to turn evil and inhumane.
Criminalisation focuses on censure and the assigning of fault, rather than helping the victims deal with the causes of their distress, such as illness, bereavement or financial difficulties.[17] In such a scenario when a person is lacking care, support and motivation to talk, live and solve their problem, putting them behind bars and questioning their status is not a rational thing to do.
Further, the Mental Health Care Act makes an exception until and unless the person is presumed in stress. The explanation and measurability of stress, sorrow and mental health are subjective matters which differ from person to person. Hence, the Act becomes a loophole in the system and procedural aspects of dealing with the victim. Therefore, a statute that is less likely to pose issues, incorporating potential procedural aspects, is essential rather than laws that merely exist in books.
The need of something better rather than the worse
One of the major reasons behind people not seeking help and committing lethal acts is the fear of being judged, misunderstood or in the current context being punished.
Thomas joiner in his book, explains thwarted belonginess and perceived burdensomeness as reasons behind serious suicidal behaviour.[18] In such a situation a person is under a mentality that he/she is a burden on others and perceives a disconnection and lack of reciprocity in care with others.
When a person on the verge of ending his/her life fails miserably just to bear a legal punishment inflicted by others and presumably adding tension and fear onto their loved ones, the rationale behind the law to protect and promote individuals too fails miserably.
Hence, the involvement of legislation, police, and exposure of the act committed by the person does no good but eventually worsens the condition of the person, further adding a confirmation factor to their depressed psyche. Hence, instead of creating a worse scenario where neither improvement nor deterrence in absolute form is seen, decriminalisation is a way forward.
A Step towards Prevention
Complete decriminalisation of suicide is not only an eradication of suicide laws from the statute but also an way to prevent preception of fear and promoting awareness. In Nepal where although attempted suicide has never been criminalised people live under perceived threats and involvement.[19] In such conditions it won’t be surprising for people not to trust and instantly believe in the new Section of Mental Health Care Act when Section 309 still exists in its original form.
Therefore, complete repeal is necessary to allow people to seek help, avoid barriers, help discuss new frameworks by providing correct and necessary data so that the society can deal with long defined complex problems with possible solutions, awareness, training and counselling, etc.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, suicide as a social phenomenon is a complex subject matter dealing and arising out of social, psychological and mental surroundings and aspects of an individual. The methods and way of addressing the issue should not merely be limited to taking legal or penal action but should have a multi dimensional approach, ensuring the involvement of the victim, legislation and general people as well. Further, complete decriminalisation of suicide is just a step forward signifying an unwavering determination to advocate for better mental health policies, creating a society where values and laws are not just focused on the majority rules but actual creation of safe, order and nurturing society.
[1]World Health Organisation, Suicide, available at https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/suicide#:~:text=Every%20year%20703%20000%20people,on%20the%20people%20left%20behind.
[2]Etymoline, Suicide, available at https://www.etymonline.com/word/suicide
[3]Antoon A. Leonard, “Suicide and Human Rights: A Suicidologist’s Perspective.” Vol.6, No.2, Violence, Health and Human Rights, pp. 128-148 (2003) available at https://www.jstor.org/stable/4065433?searchText=&searchUri=&ab_segments=&searchKey=&refreqid=fastly-default%3A8320f01b07435fad9f4a8491f90bf7e2&seq=1
[4] Barelby A. Johnson, “Durkheim’s One Couse of suicide” Vol. 30, No. 6, American Socidogical Review (1965) pp. 875-886, available at
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2090966
[5] David Lester, Suicide from a Psychological perspective, p.no. 7-12 (Charles C Thomas, USA, 1988) available at
[6] Faud Khan and Mamuna Faud, “Suicide: A Biography”, Psychiatrictimes, available at https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/suicide-a-biography
[7] Lakshmi Vijaykumar, “Suicide and its prevention: The urgent need in India.” Vol.49- Issue 2, Indian Journal of Psychiatry, p.81-84 2007 available at
[8]Ahmad Siddique, “Criminology, Penology and Victimology” p-245 (Eastern Book, Lucknow, India, 7th ed., 2011)
[9] The Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( Act 45 of 1860), s.309
[10]Carole M. Cusade, “Self-Murder, Sin and Crime” Vol.6 No. 2, Journal of Religion and Violence(2018) pp. 206-224 available at
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26671571
[11] Monica Chawla, Criminal Attempt and Punishment 96, Deep and Deep Publications PVT. LTD., New Delhi, 2006
[12] International Association for Suicide Prevention, Report: Decriminalising Suicide: Saving Lives, Reducing Stigma ( 2021), available at https://uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/26671571nitedgmh.org/app/uploads/2023/02/2021-%E2%80%93-UnitedGMH-%E2%80%93-Suicide-Decriminalisation-Report.pdf?utm_campaign=SuicideDecrim&utm_medium=United-website&utm_source=website&utm_term=download&utm_content=direct
[13] The Constitution of India, Art. 21
[14] P.Rathinam v. Union Of India, 1994 AIR 1844,1994 SCC (3) 394
[15] Gian Kaur v. state of Punjab, 1996 AIR 946, 1996 SCC (2) 648
[16] The Mental HealthCare Act, 2017 (17 of 2002) s.115
[17]Tasnim Nazari, “ Malaysia Punishes Suicide To Deter People From It, But Did We Succeed?”, The Rakyat Post (August 8, 2020) https://www.therakyatpost.com/news/malaysia/2020/08/08/malaysia-punishes-suicide-to-deter-people-from-it-but-did-we-succeed/
[18] Thomas Joiner, Why People die By Suicide? (Harvard University Press, England, 2005)
[19] Leah Utyasheva, Gael Robertson, et.al, “Perception of the criminality of attempted suicide in Nepal and its Impact on Suicide Reporting”,Vol.83, International Journal of Law and Psychiatry,( July–August 2022), available at
Author: Shalini Tripathi
Juris Centre 