Section 309 of the IPC “attempt to commit suicide” reads:- 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.”
This is an archaic remnant of our colonial past which even our past colonial masters have discarded. Yet our attempts to discard this baggage have had a convoluted and chequered history ever since the first attempt was made by the 42nd Law Commission report in 1971. The recommendation to delete this section at that time was based on sympathy borrowed from the Dharmashastra and never taken seriously. The matter came up again in the 210th report in 2008 and was reinforced in the Supreme Court judgment in “Aruna Shanbaug vs. Union of India” 2009. Justice Katju quoted Mirza Ghalib at the beginning of the judgment: -“Marte hain aarzoo mein marne ki. Maut aati hai par nahin aati”. The judgment went on to say “We are of the opinion that although Section 309 Indian Penal Code (attempt to commit suicide) has been held to be constitutionally valid, the time has come when it should be deleted by Parliament as it has become anachronistic. A person attempts suicide in a depression, and hence he needs help, rather than punishment. We therefore recommend to Parliament to consider the feasibility of deleting Section 309 from the Indian Penal Code.” This countered the judgment in Gian Kaur vs. State of Punjab, 1996 which declared that the constitution guaranteed the right to life and not the right to die.
Attempts to commit suicide are the end result of severe depression. Depression is no longer considered an aberration of the mind or character, but a medical condition in much the same light as heart disease or gallstones. As a medical condition, it requires treatment as the attempt at suicide is generally considered to be a cry for help. Under the present system however a patient who attempts to commit suicide has Section 309 0f the IPC slapped on him, and he is declared a criminal and thrown into jail. It is reassuring that the Mental Health Act as amended in 2013 provides for any person attempting suicide to be assumed to be suffering from a mental condition, and that it would be the duty of the government to provide him or her with treatment, care and rehabilitation.
In this connection an interesting question was raised. If the attempt to commit suicide was no longer a crime, then should aiding a suicide also not be withdrawn from the IPC? Section 306 of the IPC “Abetment of suicide” states: “If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine”. The court did not touch this section at all apart from stating that physician assisted suicide was not acceptable in India. Therefore Section 306 still stands. The court did note that the position on physician assisted suicide varies across the world. In the UK, Spain, Austria, Italy, Germany, France, physician assisted death is not legal. It is legal in Netherlands, Switzerland, and Belgium. In the US, the position varies from state to state.
What then of a patient who chooses to refuse treatment faced with certain death in the absence of treatment? Such cases are by no means hypothetical. Any senior consultant would have had the experience of a patient, for example, who is diagnosed with cancer in the advanced stage and faced with the prospect of high risk disfiguring surgery, prolonged chemotherapy or radiotherapy, chooses to refuse treatment and die “in peace”. This is covered by the principle of self-determination or informed consent and cannot be construed as suicidal.
Finally, what of the person fired by his or her ideals, goes on a fast unto death in protest of what is perceived as a fundamental wrong? A prime example is that of Irom Sharmila, who has been on hunger strike since November 2000 demanding a repeal of the infamous “Armed Forces Special Powers Act” in Manipur after she was a witness to gross excesses by the army under this act. The British Medical Association, in a briefing to the World Medical Association declared that “hunger strike is not equivalent to suicide. Individuals who embark on hunger strikes aim to achieve goals important to them but generally hope and intend to survive”. The purpose of the hunger strike is not to achieve death, but to rectify what is believed to be wrong. The concept of force feeding is therefore not permissible, and repeatedly arresting Iron Sharmila may no longer be an option for the authorities.
The hunger striker fundamentally differs from the suicide bomber in that the latter sets out to kill or maim others who may have nothing to do with his or her cause. Whether he screams “banzai” or “god is great”, he sets out to deny others their right to life and therefore is guilty of a criminal act.
The whole issue of suicide assumes great significance in the light of the WHO statistics on the subject. India has a suicide rate of 15 per 1 lakh population, and the world’s highest rate among the 15 to 19 year olds. It is the leading cause of death among young Indian women; an even greater killer than maternal mortality. These landmark changes have not come a day too soon. We urgently need to teach our young population that failure and frustration are the first rungs in the ladder of success and do not merit the drastic action of taking one’s own life. We need to teach them how to cope with failure and frustration, and to help them in their depression.
(Dr Gladstone D’Costa is the chairman, accreditation committee and member, Executive Committee, Goa Medical Council).
