Back
1994 Supreme(Del) 276
High Court Of Delhi
P.RATHINAM,N.PATNAIK - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
W.P.(CRI.) 409 of 1986
Decided On : 04/26/1994
The right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution includes the right to not live a forced life. Suicide is a call for help, not a crime, and prosecuting people who attempt suicide is cruel and inhumane.
Headnote:
SUICIDE - RIGHT TO DIE - SECTION 309 IPC - CONSTITUTIONALITY - ARTICLE 21 - RIGHT TO LIFE - INTERPRETATION - SCOPE - RIGHT TO NOT LIVE A FORCED LIFE - SUICIDE AS A CALL FOR HELP - SECTION 309 IPC VIOLATES ARTICLE 21 AND IS VOID.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a challenge to the constitutionality of Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which criminalizes attempted suicide. The petitioners argued that Section 309 violated Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that Section 309 of the IPC was unconstitutional and void. The Court found that the right to life guaranteed by Article 21 includes the right to not live a forced life. The Court also found that suicide is a call for help, not a crime, and that prosecuting people who attempt suicide is cruel and inhumane.
Issues: 1. Whether Section 309 of the IPC violates Article 21 of the Indian Constitution? 2. Whether the right to life guaranteed by Article 21 includes the right to not live a forced life? 3. Whether suicide is a crime or a call for help?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that Section 309 of the IPC violates Article 21 of the Indian Constitution because it criminalizes attempted suicide, which is a call for help, not a crime. The Court also found that the right to life guaranteed by Article 21 includes the right to not live a forced life.
Final Decision: The Court held that Section 309 of the IPC is unconstitutional and void.
( 1 ) GANDHIJI once observed : "death is our friend, the trust of friends. He delivers us from agony. I do not want to die of a creeping paralysis of my faculties-a defeated man. "
( 2 ) ENGLISH poet William Henly wrote: "i am the master of my fate. I am the Captain of my soul. "
( 3 ) DESPITE above Hamlet s dilema of "to be or not to be" faces many a soul in times of distress, agony and suffering when question asked is to "to die or not to die". If the decision is to die and the same is implemented to its fructification resulting in death, that is the end of the matter. The dead is relieved of the agony paid and offering and no evil consequences known to our law follow. But if the person concerned is unfortunate to survive, the attempt to commit suicide may see him behind the bars same is punishable u/s. 309, IPC.
( 4 ) IN para 4 to 9, State vs. Sanjay Kumar 1985. Cr. L. J. 931 ; Maruti vs. State 1987. Cr. L. J. 748 ; Court or its own Motion vs. Yogesh Sharma Cr. R 230/85 (Delhi) are briefly noticed in which Delhi and Bombay High Court had held that S. 309 was unconstitutional. In Yogesh Sharma (Supra) it was noticed that more than 100 persons were languishing in jail and mingling with criminals when proceedings against them were pending in Criminal Courts. It was held that it was abuse of process of Court and 119 persons were directed to be acquitted.
( 5 ) VIEWS of some authors and thinkers on the subject are noticed.
( 6 ) THE broad points of their objection/ criticism were these, (a) suicide is an act against religion ; (b) it is immoral ; (c) it produced adverse sociological effects ; (d) it is against public policy (this has also been main argument of the Counsel of U. O. I.), (e) it damages monopolistic power of the State, as State alone can take life ; and (f) it would encourage aiding and abetting of suicide and may lead to constitutional cannibalism.
( 7 ) IN para 25, the Court framed 16 questions and proposed to deal with the subject on their basis. These were listed in order of their importance. (a) Has Art. 21 any positive content or is it merely negative.
( 8 ) THIS question is no longer re Integra in as much as a Constitution Bench of this Court in Unnikrishnan vs. State of A P. 1993 (I) SCC. 645, (in which right to receive education upto the primary stage has been held to be a call of Art. 21. has virtually answered this question. In para 30, Mohan, J has mentioned about the rights which have been held to be covered U/art. 21. These being (1 ). Right to go abroad (Satwant Singh, v. D. R. APO), (2) Right to privacy (Govind vs. State, (3) Rt. against Solitary confinement (Sunil Batra vs. Delhi Adm.); Rt. against fetters (Charles Sobhraj) ; (5) Rt. to legal aid M. H. Hoeskot vs. State; (6) Rt. to Speedy trial (Husainara Khatun) : (7) Rt. against handcuffing (T. Vatasvarban vs. State; (8) Rt. against delayed execution ; (9) Rt against Custodial violence (Sheela Barse) ; (10) Rt. against public hanging (A. G. vs. Lachmi) (11) Doctor s assistance (P. Kaira vs. U. O I.); Shelter (Shantilal Builders ).
( 9 ) THE aforsaid is enough to State that Art. 21 has enough of positive content Originating idea came from view of Field, J. in Munn. vs. Illinois 94. u/s. 113, in which it was held that life (in 5th and 14th U. S. Amendments) means something more than mere animal existence. This view has been accepted in Kharak Singh AIR. 1978. S. C. 1675 ; Bd. of Trustees vs. Dilip MR. 1983. S. C. 109; Vikram Dev vs. State AIR. 1988. SC. 1782 and Ram Saran vs. UO. I. AIR. 1989. S. C. 549. In these it was held that life in Art. 21 means right to live with dignity.
( 10 ) RAMASWAMY, J. has stated in 1992 (1) SCC 441 that physical and mental health is integral part of right to life . (2) Has an Indian right to die.
( 11 ) IF a person has a right to live, question is whether he has right not to live. Bombay High Court held that a person has a right to die. Critics of this judgment differed from this view.
( 12 ) ON
