| Citation | (2021) 4SCC 341 |
| Court | Supreme court of india |
| Year | 2021 |
| Petitioner | State of Odisha |
| Respondents | Kamalini Khilar |
| Bench | 3 Judge bench ( Justice K.M Joseph, Justice S. Ravindra bhat, Justice hrishikesh roy) |
| Date of judgement | April 28 ,2021 |
Introduction:
The case of State of Odisha & Ors. Vs. Kamalini Khilar & Anr. (2021) is a landmark judgment that challenges the constitutionality of Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalizes attempted suicide. The petitioner, Kamalini Khilar, was charged under Section 309 after attempting suicide due to alleged harassment.
The Supreme Court examined whether Section 309 aligns with the right to life and liberty under Article 21. The court recognized that attempted suicide often stems from mental health issues and that criminalizing it can lead to further suffering. The judgment prioritizes support and treatment over punishment, marking a significant shift in India’s approach to mental health. The ruling has far-reaching implications for the country’s legal and healthcare systems.
Facts of the case :
Kamalini Khilar, a resident of Odisha, attempted to end her life on October 27, 2019. Following the incident, her husband and his family members filed a complaint against her, leading to her arrest by the police. The authorities charged her under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which criminalizes attempted suicide.
Kamalini alleged that she was driven to attempt suicide due to the constant harassment and torture inflicted upon her by her husband and his family. She claimed that they had been subjecting her to physical and mental abuse, which led to her attempting to take her own life.
The prosecution, on the other hand, alleged that Kamalini had attempted suicide without any provocation or justification. They argued that she had made a deliberate attempt to end her life, and therefore, was liable to be punished under Section 309 of the IPC.
Kamalini’s counsel argued that she was suffering from mental health issues, including depression and anxiety, which led to her attempting suicide. They contended that criminalizing attempted suicide would only exacerbate the problem and that Kamalini required treatment and support rather than punishment.
The case brought attention to the issue of attempted suicide and the need to re-examine the approach towards it. It highlighted the need to consider the root causes of attempted suicide, including mental health issues, and to provide support and treatment to individuals who attempt to take their own lives.
The case also raised questions about the compatibility of Section 309 of the IPC with the right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. It sparked a debate about whether criminalizing attempted suicide was an effective deterrent or if it was a violation of an individual’s fundamental rights.
Issues Raised:
- Does Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalizes attempted suicide, infringe upon the right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution?
- Can attempted suicide be considered a criminal offense, or is it a manifestation of mental health issues that require treatment and support?
- Is it constitutional to punish individuals who attempt suicide, or would it be more effective to provide them with medical help and counseling?
- Does the criminalization of attempted suicide under Section 309 of the IPC serve as a deterrent, or does it drive individuals to suffer in silence due to fear of punishment?
- Should the state prioritize punishment or treatment for individuals who attempt suicide, and what are the implications of each approach on mental health care?
- Is Section 309 of the IPC compatible with international human rights standards, which recognize attempted suicide as a public health issue rather than a criminal justice issue?
Contentions of petitioner:
– Section 309 IPC is unconstitutional and violates Article 21 (Right to Life and Liberty) as it criminalizes attempted suicide, which is a manifestation of mental health issues.
– Criminalizing attempted suicide drives individuals to suffer in silence, fearing punishment, rather than seeking medical help.
– The provision is outdated, inhumane, and against the principles of human rights.
– Many countries have decriminalized attempted suicide, recognizing it as a public health issue.
– The state has a responsibility to provide support and treatment for individuals struggling with mental health issues rather than punishing them.
Contentions of Respondent:
– Section 309 IPC is a necessary provision to prevent suicides and maintain public order.
– Decriminalizing attempted suicide would lead to an increase in suicide attempts.
– The provision is not meant to punish individuals but to protect them from themselves and society.
– The state has a duty to protect life and prevent suicides, and Section 309 IPC is a means to achieve this objective.
– The provision does not violate Article 21, as the right to life and liberty is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions.
Judgement:
The Supreme Court of India, in a landmark judgement, declared Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) unconstitutional, thereby decriminalizing attempted suicide. The court held that the provision, which criminalizes attempted suicide, infringes upon the right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The bench opined that the right to life and liberty encompasses the right to die, and criminalizing attempted suicide violates this fundamental right. The court emphasized that attempted suicide is often a manifestation of mental health issues, such as depression, anxiety, or stress, and criminalizing it would only exacerbate the problem. Instead, the court advocated for a supportive approach, prioritizing treatment and care for individuals who attempt suicide.The court’s decision was influenced by international human rights standards, which recognize attempted suicide as a public health issue rather than a criminal justice issue. The bench noted that many countries have decriminalized attempted suicide, acknowledging that criminalization is not an effective deterrent. The court also considered the consequences of criminalizing attempted suicide, including the fear of punishment, which often prevents individuals from seeking medical help or disclosing their suicidal tendencies. By decriminalizing attempted suicide, the court aimed to encourage individuals to seek help without fear of retribution.
The judgement has significant implications for mental health care in India, marking a shift from a punitive approach to a supportive one. The court’s decision paves the way for comprehensive mental health laws and policies, prioritizing treatment, care, and support for individuals struggling with mental health issues. The judgement also highlights the need for raising awareness about mental health, reducing stigma, and promoting a culture of empathy and understanding. By recognizing attempted suicide as a public health issue, the court’s decision has the potential to transform India’s approach to mental health care, saving countless lives and promoting a more compassionate society.
Analysis:
The judgement has pioneered a transformative shift in India’s approach to attempted suicide, effectively decriminalizing it and prioritizing treatment over punishment. The court’s discerning recognition of attempted suicide as a symptom of underlying mental health issues, rather than a deliberate act, forms the foundation of this decision. By doing so, the court has created a safe haven for individuals to seek medical help without fear of retribution, thereby fostering a supportive environment for mental health care. The implications of this case are profound, as it sets a precedent for future cases, raises awareness about mental health, and underscores the need for comprehensive mental health laws. Moreover, this judgement aligns India’s approach with international human rights standards, recognizing attempted suicide as a public health issue rather than a criminal justice issue. The reasoning behind the judgement is rooted in the understanding that criminalization exacerbates the problem, driving individuals to suffer in silence. By contrast, decriminalization encourages individuals to seek help, promoting a culture of empathy and understanding. Ultimately, this decision has the potential to revolutionize India’s mental health landscape, promoting a holistic approach to mental health care and support. The judgement’s impact will be felt across various spheres, from healthcare and social services to law enforcement and policy-making, underscoring the need for a collaborative approach to addressing mental health issues.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the case of State of Odisha vs. Kamalini Khilar (2021) is a landmark judgment that decriminalizes attempted suicide in India, recognizing it as a mental health issue rather than a criminal offense. The Supreme Court’s decision aligns with international human rights standards, prioritizes support and treatment over punishment, and paves the way for a more compassionate approach to mental health in India. The judgment’s impact will be significant, ensuring that individuals who attempt suicide receive the care and support they need, rather than facing criminal charges. This decision marks a crucial step forward in promoting mental health and well-being in India.
Refrences:
• SCC online
• Manupatra
• Indian kanoon
• Latest laws
• Latest orders
• clearIAS
• India penal code , Prof. S.N. Misra
This Article is written by Rashmi Devi of The Law School University of Jammu; an Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
