Regrettably, India society widely views suicide with disapproval, in part because of its characterization as a crime in the Indian Penal Code, a Penal Code largely founded on English Law with ad hoc cultural adaptations and it should be noted that was formulated by the British during the British Raj Regime in 1860 [1], and given that during it's colonial history Great Britain for a time had criminalized suicide, the Indian adoption of British customs influenced India in adopted that law regulating suicide. With suicide rates increasing in India, suicidal behavior whether successfully consummated or not represents a major public and mental health and mental health problem urgently requiring constructive action. This is even more imperative when one realizes that attempted suicide survivors become in Indian society's eyes tainted members of community and country [2]. This in turn is exacerbated by the extreme strictness of the Penal Code along with the cultural shame of police investigation that follows any attempt, and the refusal by authorities to in any way help the affected persons. Then as a further consequence, the wide circle of affected individuals often seek under stigma and fear to conceal the facts of the attempt, making it even more improbable that affected person ever receive proper medical or psychiatric help and attention. These collectively also assure that gross underreporting may be occurring, given also the widespread fear of notifying the proper authorities [3], resulting in what has been called a "conspiracy of denial" [4].

The India Supreme Court, to its initial credit, has attempted in the past to decriminalize suicide, even declaring Section 309 unconstitutional on the grounds that it amounted to punishing the accused victim twice, its rationale most cogently articulated in the landmark P. Rathinam v. Union of India case in 1994 [5], where the Supreme Court held that Section 309 of the Penal Code should be effaced from the statute book in order to humanize Indian penal laws because it is a “cruel and irrational provision” and is against religion, morality, public policy, and has “no beneficial effect on society", and arguing that although Section 309 of the penal code does not violate Article 14 (equal protection of the law), it nonetheless does violate Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which protects life and personal liberty, an Article the Court declared implies to “right to die”. Unfortunately, and to the same of Indian jurisprudence, the Rathinam case was overturned in 1996.

Since then, the Law Commission of India had asked the government to repeal the law in 2008, and the 210th Law Commission of India Report in May 2011 has recommended an elimination of Section 309, as part of its ruling in the Aruna Shanbaug euthanasia case. The court requested Parliament to consider the feasibility of deleting Section 309 of the IPC ". . . as it has become anachronistic. A person attempts suicide in depression and hence needs help rather than punishment". And In 2012, the government proposed the Mental Health Care (MHC) Bill with provisions to keep persons having attempt suicide outside the purview of criminal law, and although not providing for complete exemption from criminal prosecution, the MHC Bill stipulates required examination by a psychiatrist before any criminal investigation is contemplated, so that if the psychiatrist certifies to mental illness in the person having attempted suicide, with accompanying reasonable clinical grounds to believe the suicide attempt was a result of the illness, no (criminal) complaint shall be entertained against the person, and with the government's duty to provide care, treatment and rehabilitation as part of suicide treatment and prevention. And although finally introduced into Rajya Sabha (the Indian Parliament) in 2013 [6], still almost three years after the Supreme Court asked parliamentarians to quash that law, it remains in the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and although the MHC Bill is far from perfect [7], it nonetheless represents the most significant regulatory/legislative advance for mental health in Indian jurisprudence.

Finally, it can no longer be rationally argued that criminalization of suicide serves any public or societal good, given that it does not further any of the three theories of criminal punishment - (1) deterrence, (2) reformation, and (3) retribution [8], and India can no longer claim any justification for the furtherance of enforcement the criminalization of suicide. There is a bitter irony here I should note: that the proscribing portion of the Indian Penal Code started with British colonization, yet the UK itself has long since decriminalized suicide. What needs to be finally recognized is those engaging in suicidal behavior require psychiatric services, social support, and compassionate assistance toward effective suicide prevention interventions, not counter-productive investigation, stigmatization and imprisonment. And India stands in frank violation of international law: it has been plausibly argued that a proper understanding of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), which India has ratified, should entail the decriminalization of suicide [9].

With no net societal benefit and lacking all ethical standing in any informed and evidence-based compassionate view of modern mental health, the criminalization statute of the Indian Penal Code needs to be finally and strongly expunged, and the Mental health Code Bill of 2013 needs to become law, subject to future review and refinement after passage, for India to join the community of nations in the enlightened treatment of suicidal behaviors.

REFERENCES

1. Keeton, G. The Republic of India: The development of its laws and constitution. Westport, CT: Greenwood. 1970.

2. Mojica S, Murrell D. The right to choose: when should death be in the individual’s hands? Whittier Law Review 1991; 12: 471-504.

3. Joseph, A., Abraham, S., Muliyil, J. P., George, K., Prasad, J., Minz, S., Abraham, V. J., & Jacob, K. S. (2003). Evaluation of suicide rates in rural India using verbal autopsies. British Medical Journal, 326, 1121-1122.

4. Sareen H, Trivedi JK. Legal Implications of Suicide Problems Specific to South Asia. Delhi Psychiatry Journal 2009; 12(1): 121-125.

5. P. Rathinam vs. Union of India (1994) 3 S.C.C. 394 (India) http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/542988/.

6. Seventy-Fourth Report On The Mental Health Care Bill, 2013. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Parliament Of India. Rajya Sabha. Department-Related Parliamentary Standing Committee On Health And Family Welfare. Rajya Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi. November, 2013/ Kartika, 1935 (Saka). Presented to the Chairman, Rajya Sabha on the 20th November, 2013. Forwarded to the Speaker, Lok Sabha on the 20th November , 2013. http://www.prsindia.org/uploads/media/Mental%20Health/SCR%20Mental%20Health%20Care%20Bill,%202013.pdf.

7. Antony JT. The mental health care bill 2013: A disaster in the offing? Indian J Psychiatry 2014; 56(1):3-7.

8. Kahn DL, Lester D. Efforts to Decriminalize Suicide in Ghana, India and Singapore. Suicidology Online 2013; 4:96-104.

9. Reg. Submission to the Standing Committee on Mental health care Bill of 2012 from concerned citizens of India. Inclusive Planet & Bapu Trust for Research on Mind & Discourse. 25-09-2013. At: http://inclusiveplanet.org.in/sites/default/files/MHC%20Bill%20Reccomendations%20to%20Standing%20Committee%20on%20Suicide.pdf.

Life with higher consciousness is a gift of God. Even life itself has no right to give up this gift. In fact, it is society (in its broadest sense encompassing justice, economy and all other spheres of life) that is responsible make a person take one's life even for a cause. Therefore, energies must be directed to change society in a better one, rather seeking justification for attempt to suicide. If there will be no injustice, no discrimination, no atrocities of any kind, none will be poor and society will treat its all people especially elderly, their will be no suicide.

I am not sure suicide as a mental illness or symptom of mental illness is hundred percent preventable ! There will be be cases always even when there is no apparent reason.

Every country has its own laws. It also depends on the religious orientation of the country. Assisted suicide is allowed in some countries and states in certain conditions. I feel that it depends on a person's belief and religion.

Regrettably, India society widely views suicide with disapproval, in part because of its characterization as a crime in the Indian Penal Code, a Penal Code largely founded on English Law with ad hoc cultural adaptations and it should be noted that was formulated by the British during the British Raj Regime in 1860 [1], and given that during it's colonial history Great Britain for a time had criminalized suicide, the Indian adoption of British customs influenced India in adopted that law regulating suicide. With suicide rates increasing in India, suicidal behavior whether successfully consummated or not represents a major public and mental health and mental health problem urgently requiring constructive action. This is even more imperative when one realizes that attempted suicide survivors become in Indian society's eyes tainted members of community and country [2]. This in turn is exacerbated by the extreme strictness of the Penal Code along with the cultural shame of police investigation that follows any attempt, and the refusal by authorities to in any way help the affected persons. Then as a further consequence, the wide circle of affected individuals often seek under stigma and fear to conceal the facts of the attempt, making it even more improbable that affected person ever receive proper medical or psychiatric help and attention. These collectively also assure that gross underreporting may be occurring, given also the widespread fear of notifying the proper authorities [3], resulting in what has been called a "conspiracy of denial" [4].

The India Supreme Court, to its initial credit, has attempted in the past to decriminalize suicide, even declaring Section 309 unconstitutional on the grounds that it amounted to punishing the accused victim twice, its rationale most cogently articulated in the landmark P. Rathinam v. Union of India case in 1994 [5], where the Supreme Court held that Section 309 of the Penal Code should be effaced from the statute book in order to humanize Indian penal laws because it is a “cruel and irrational provision” and is against religion, morality, public policy, and has “no beneficial effect on society", and arguing that although Section 309 of the penal code does not violate Article 14 (equal protection of the law), it nonetheless does violate Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which protects life and personal liberty, an Article the Court declared implies to “right to die”. Unfortunately, and to the same of Indian jurisprudence, the Rathinam case was overturned in 1996.

Since then, the Law Commission of India had asked the government to repeal the law in 2008, and the 210th Law Commission of India Report in May 2011 has recommended an elimination of Section 309, as part of its ruling in the Aruna Shanbaug euthanasia case. The court requested Parliament to consider the feasibility of deleting Section 309 of the IPC ". . . as it has become anachronistic. A person attempts suicide in depression and hence needs help rather than punishment". And In 2012, the government proposed the Mental Health Care (MHC) Bill with provisions to keep persons having attempt suicide outside the purview of criminal law, and although not providing for complete exemption from criminal prosecution, the MHC Bill stipulates required examination by a psychiatrist before any criminal investigation is contemplated, so that if the psychiatrist certifies to mental illness in the person having attempted suicide, with accompanying reasonable clinical grounds to believe the suicide attempt was a result of the illness, no (criminal) complaint shall be entertained against the person, and with the government's duty to provide care, treatment and rehabilitation as part of suicide treatment and prevention. And although finally introduced into Rajya Sabha (the Indian Parliament) in 2013 [6], still almost three years after the Supreme Court asked parliamentarians to quash that law, it remains in the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and although the MHC Bill is far from perfect [7], it nonetheless represents the most significant regulatory/legislative advance for mental health in Indian jurisprudence.

Finally, it can no longer be rationally argued that criminalization of suicide serves any public or societal good, given that it does not further any of the three theories of criminal punishment - (1) deterrence, (2) reformation, and (3) retribution [8], and India can no longer claim any justification for the furtherance of enforcement the criminalization of suicide. There is a bitter irony here I should note: that the proscribing portion of the Indian Penal Code started with British colonization, yet the UK itself has long since decriminalized suicide. What needs to be finally recognized is those engaging in suicidal behavior require psychiatric services, social support, and compassionate assistance toward effective suicide prevention interventions, not counter-productive investigation, stigmatization and imprisonment. And India stands in frank violation of international law: it has been plausibly argued that a proper understanding of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), which India has ratified, should entail the decriminalization of suicide [9].

With no net societal benefit and lacking all ethical standing in any informed and evidence-based compassionate view of modern mental health, the criminalization statute of the Indian Penal Code needs to be finally and strongly expunged, and the Mental health Code Bill of 2013 needs to become law, subject to future review and refinement after passage, for India to join the community of nations in the enlightened treatment of suicidal behaviors.

REFERENCES

1. Keeton, G. The Republic of India: The development of its laws and constitution. Westport, CT: Greenwood. 1970.

2. Mojica S, Murrell D. The right to choose: when should death be in the individual’s hands? Whittier Law Review 1991; 12: 471-504.

3. Joseph, A., Abraham, S., Muliyil, J. P., George, K., Prasad, J., Minz, S., Abraham, V. J., & Jacob, K. S. (2003). Evaluation of suicide rates in rural India using verbal autopsies. British Medical Journal, 326, 1121-1122.

4. Sareen H, Trivedi JK. Legal Implications of Suicide Problems Specific to South Asia. Delhi Psychiatry Journal 2009; 12(1): 121-125.

5. P. Rathinam vs. Union of India (1994) 3 S.C.C. 394 (India) http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/542988/.

6. Seventy-Fourth Report On The Mental Health Care Bill, 2013. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Parliament Of India. Rajya Sabha. Department-Related Parliamentary Standing Committee On Health And Family Welfare. Rajya Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi. November, 2013/ Kartika, 1935 (Saka). Presented to the Chairman, Rajya Sabha on the 20th November, 2013. Forwarded to the Speaker, Lok Sabha on the 20th November , 2013. http://www.prsindia.org/uploads/media/Mental%20Health/SCR%20Mental%20Health%20Care%20Bill,%202013.pdf.

7. Antony JT. The mental health care bill 2013: A disaster in the offing? Indian J Psychiatry 2014; 56(1):3-7.

8. Kahn DL, Lester D. Efforts to Decriminalize Suicide in Ghana, India and Singapore. Suicidology Online 2013; 4:96-104.

9. Reg. Submission to the Standing Committee on Mental health care Bill of 2012 from concerned citizens of India. Inclusive Planet & Bapu Trust for Research on Mind & Discourse. 25-09-2013. At: http://inclusiveplanet.org.in/sites/default/files/MHC%20Bill%20Reccomendations%20to%20Standing%20Committee%20on%20Suicide.pdf.

OK. So is the question whether suicide is a criminal offence or an attempt? I would not book a successful suicide as a criminal offence as there would be no corpus to charge but an attempt would raise more questions. Obviously, there is the question of the state of mind of the supposedly 'accused' person.

Rehabilitation, in my opinion would secure better results than a conviction.

I hope I was able to help :-)

Yours or mine ?

:)

Obviously suicide attempt!

And Peter Ross please elaborate ! :)

I guess criminalizing attempts at suicide would aim at discouraging further acts in society, or from the individual himself. The outcome of a conviction should be the focus (does it help the individual?). I would like to hear from researchers in the far east e.g. the Koreas what they think about this

In the first place, why should one have to suicide? Suicides based on emotions or not in large number, though such suicides may also be averted if family takes care of its members. However, anywhere in the world suicides are due to some want- emotional and material. If in a just society one gets what one needs lawfully, there will be no suicide. Generally, injustice by governments, courts and society or cruelty of family and friends or loss of money, failure to achieve what one deserve are sources culminating in taking this last step. Globalisation has also added another factors in India, distancing from long held values, people have started to think wealth is all, though it is not. One cannot purchase everything by money. Competition is breeding hatred among colleague and jealousy, if one is not promoted and other colleague is, it may led one to take the last step. Whether law or no law, attempt to suicide means the person is completely hopeless that justice can be obtained. It is in this context that individual and collective energies should be channeled to change a society, political and economic system where injustice prevails.

Mohammad Firoz Khan, leaving other side aside , most of the times suicide doesn't have a reason and that's why its a mental illness. People who are apparently doing well in terms of worldly affairs etc do end their life.

A mentally ill person cannot be responsible for his/her acts here and hereafter. These mentally ill people should be kept in mental asylum so that they neither harm themselves, nor other person in the society.

The issue of motivation/rationale for suicidal behaviour seems to be of interest to the contributors to the current discussion, and there seem to be diverse views.

Colleagues and I examined this question with an emergency department-based needs analysis a few years ago (It is available as full text through my ResearchGate page.):

Lynette Joubert MA DLitt et Phil , Melissa Petrakis PhD MSW & Enrico Cementon MBBS MMed (Psych) FRANZCP (2012): Suicide Attempt Presentations at the Emergency Department: Outcomes From a Pilot Study Examining Precipitating Factors in Deliberate Self-Harm and Issues in Primary Care Physician Management, Social Work in Health Care, 51:1, 66-76

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00981389.2011.622673

The conclusion of this study was that psychosocial crises and depression are key factors in suicide attempts.

Depression was present in 92% of cases.

Precipitating Factors to suicide attempts: trigger situations prompting deliberate self-harm were as follows (some patients had more than one trigger): relationship issues (67%), retrenchments/job loss (33%), death of a significant other (8%), and family issues (8%).

Constantine, may I also take this opportunity to thank you for such a rich historic perspective regarding social and legal views and responses in India - very interesting for me to read!

Thanks Melissa was sharing this with us. I do agree with your conclusions though there are some cases with severe psychopathology like psychosis etc as well. I suppose arresting some one for a suicide attempt in a depressive episode is not the best thing to happen.

hi muhammad

how could it be a criminal offense?

if the law of a particular country considers  it to be a criminal offence, it can be though.

My personal opinion is that it is a preposterous law , ironically enough, against human rights specifically for the death caused by dignified elegant and respectful causes incentivizing an individual to appeal to hunger strike and probably end their life. 

It's an old conception.

As stated Seneque, if you are able to commit suicide, you will always remain free, because you are able to "quit the play" at any moment.

Of course, this way of thinking doesn't please to authorities, religious and civilians as well.

On another point of view, large majority of suicides are the consequences of illness, usually depression. Therefore, solution lies in treatment and not in punishment.

Finally, lack of clear judgment is, in most cultures, considered as irresponsibility for the facts considered.

As usual, there is not a simple yes or no answer. How death, and the manner of death, are regarded is always a cultural matter, regardless of whether or not it was judged criminal. There are multitudes of motivators and risk factors.

(Ravdi Ghandi's was also jailed during a hunger strike - and clearly regarded as a very honorable and admirable man)

- If life were to be considered property would it not be each individual's, as in the phrase " to take one's own  life"?

-Successful suicide is considered honourable in many cultures.

-It is presumptuous to assume a suicidal person to be depressed, mentally ill. It is not always  true and may stigmatize the person. Consider the possibility of other motives.

For example: Altruism and fatalism (Emile  Durkheim 1987) 

Altruism referring to people considering their lives of secondary importance to other's or collective goals, believing  theier death would serve the interests or causes of others.

Fatalism being the motivation for suicide as an outcome of despair and hopelessness.

Suicide may serve a  desire for  revenge  for marginalization based on gender, religion, politics, ethnicity, disabilities, age,... ..

And what of legal euthanasia? Is everyone depressed or mentally ill  who has requested euthanasia successfully in the Netherlands?

Chronic suicidality may serve as a means to cope ( knowing that choice is still there) and does not mean a person also has intent.

Thanks

Suicide behavior, successful and attempted, is a criminal offense in Uganda according to the country's constitution, children's act, the Penal code and the Magistrates' courts act. The arguments against suicidal behavior are 1) an individual's life is the property of the state, and it is only the state that can take away the life of a citizen 2) suicide by a parent or guardian robs all minors under his/her care of parental care and affection. However the public that has been exposed to suicide and mental health facts now accept that something can be done to prevent suicide. Suicide leads to loss of social capital at the household and community levels and loss of economic capital at the same levels. In our limited experience in suicide prevention work in Uganda, the training of the lay public and law enforcement officers leads to a significant drop in the occurrence of suicidal behavior. Suicide is the result of multiple factors ranging from social, economic, political and mental health disorders all of which can be altered by suicide prevention strategies. It is therefore not justified to label suicide as an offense.

Article Decriminalization of suicide as per Section 115 of Mental He...

A person who wants to commit suicide cannot be punished by any penalty because he is not deterred by death. How can he be punished with imprisonment, for example, but a person who incites suicide can be punished and be severely punished if the suicide is not an adult?