SC asks Centre to justify 2017 Mental healthcare law on attempt to suicide

The bench observed that Section 115 adversely impacted the effect of Section 309. The bench also sought the assistance of the Attorney General K K Venugopal in this matter.

Published: 12th September 2020 02:40 AM  |   Last Updated: 12th September 2020 09:18 AM   |  A+A-

Supreme Court

Supreme Court (File Photo| Shekhar Yadav, EPS)

By Express News Service

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to examine two laws which clash with each other on whether the attempt to suicide is an offence.

The top court has sought a response from the Centre to explain the validity of Section 115 of the Mental Healthcare Act 2017 that decriminalises attempt to take one’s life, as it runs contrary to Section 309 of IPC, which punishes those who survive suicide attempts.

A bench headed by CJI S A Bobde questioned as to how a provision of the IPC was rendered ineffective by enacting central legislation.  

The bench observed that Section 115 adversely impacted the effect of Section 309. The bench also sought the assistance of the Attorney General K K Venugopal in this matter.

The observation came while hearing a plea which highlighted an incident where a man attempted suicide by jumping into an enclosure in a zoo.

The petitioner cited, due to this man-animal conflict issue, the animal was kept in solitary confinement, which amounts to animal cruelty.  

A bench of Chief Justice S A Bobde and Justices AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian said, "Issue notice to the Attorney General for India, calling upon the Union of India to justify the validity of section 115 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 which virtually negates section 309 IPC".

The notice for Union of India was accepted by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.

The bench said, this act of attempt to commit suicide is an offence punishable under section 309 of the India Penal Code (IPC) but Section 115 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, which creates a presumption, has an impact on the provision.

The top court also appointed former Additional Solicitor General ANS Nadkarni, as amicus curiae in the matter and tagged the plea with the Writ Petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 309 of IPC, which is pending before this Court.

Section 115 provides for presumption of severe stress in case of attempt to commit suicide unless proved otherwise and the person shall not be tried or punished under the IPC.

The provision further provides that "the appropriate Government shall have a 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".

During the hearing, the bench asked Mehta as to how can the government while enacting a law virtually nullify a provision of IPC.

Mehta pointed out that there is a presumption of unsoundness of mind or mental illness that gets attached when a person attempts to commit suicide.

The CJI said that it may not always be a case of unsoundness of mind as happened in the case of monks in Vietnam, who had killed themselves in protest.

"They were in a complete calm state of mind, there was no unsoundness of mind," the bench said, adding that the practice of Santhara in Jainism is not to commit suicide but to liberate yourselves from this world.

At the outset, animal right activist Sangeeta Dogra, who represented the NGO 'Red Lynx Confederation', said the torture was inflicted upon an elephant, as a man jumped into the animal enclosure attempting to commit suicide.

She sought direction to Centre and Central Zoo Authority to take steps to prevent people from jumping into the animal enclosure to commit suicide.

On July 8, the Delhi High Court had declined to entertain the NGO's plea alleging inaction by the Centre and the authority regarding repeated instances of people jumping into animal enclosures in various zoos across the country.

The High Court had however, allowed the NGO to make a representation before appropriate authorities in view of the cause espoused in the plea.

"As and when such a representation is received, the same shall be decided in accordance with the law, rules, regulations and government policy applicable to the facts of the case," the court had said.

It had further said that the decision shall be taken "as expeditiously as possible and practicable".

The petition, moved through Dogra, had cited various instances of people jumping into tiger or lion enclosures in various zoos across the country, leading to those individuals getting mauled to death by the felines.

It had alleged that zoo authorities were not ensuring that such incidents do not happen.

(With PTI Inputs)


Disclaimer : We respect your thoughts and views! But we need to be judicious while moderating your comments. All the comments will be moderated by the editorial. Abstain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks. Try to avoid outside hyperlinks inside the comment. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines.

The views expressed in comments published on are those of the comment writers alone. They do not represent the views or opinions of or its staff, nor do they represent the views or opinions of The New Indian Express Group, or any entity of, or affiliated with, The New Indian Express Group. reserves the right to take any or all comments down at any time.

flipboard facebook twitter whatsapp