Prior, the Centre had said it was managing the issue with all earnestness and that an adequate senson of one year be given for "the course of execution so the outcomes arise." The court had allowed a half year's an ideal opportunity to Centre on July 6, 2017. The bench had said that "paying pay isn't the arrangement by any means to manage ranchers' suicides" as the vital justification for these was obligation and their powerlessness to repay the credits. It, be that as it may, had said the issue of farmers' self-destruction can't be managed for the time being and the principal legal officer was defended in looking for time for compelling aftereffects of different plans. The Centre had alluded to different plans and said multi-pronged endeavours were being made to enhance their predicament and out of around 12 crore farmers, 5.34 crore farmers have effectively been covered under different government assistance plans, including the Fasal Bima Yojana. It had said very nearly 30% homestead land has additionally been covered under the yield protection scheme and the figure would significantly ascend before the finish of 2018. Mr. Gonsalves, addressing the NGO, had battled that more than 3,000 ranchers have ended it all and the public authority should resolve every one of the main problems and execute a legitimate approach."[5]

Concerned about the rise in farmer suicides in the nation, the Supreme Court advocated for a comprehensive national measure to protect farmers, many of whom have committed suicide as a result of increasing debt and crop failures caused by natural disasters. "It is a sensitive matter of larger public interest and human rights that covers the entire country," a bench composed of Chief Justice J.S. Khehar and Justice N.V. Ramana said, broadening the scope of the petition that has raised the issue of farmer suicides in Gujarat to the entire country.[6]

"In this issue, we believe that all states should support, and as such, we have summoned all state governments, Union Territories, the Centre, and the RBI," the bench said, going to ask people to file their reactions within four weeks. The court was hearing an appeal filed by the NGO 'Citizens Resource and Action and Initiative' on behalf of Gujarat farmers."[7]

During the hearing, the court stated that many farmers were committing suicide as a result of crop loss and loans, despite the fact that there was no national policy in designed to safeguard them. The PIL, which only pertains to Gujarat, sought compensation for the family members of 619 debt-ridden farmers who alleged to have committed suicide in the state since 2003, as well as a directive to the state to pay mandatory financial assistance of Rs 30,000 per hectare to landowners who suffered crop loss.[8] It has challenged the Gujarat High Court's July 10, 2013 order dismissing its compensation petition, alleging that the state government has ignored farmers. According to an affidavit submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, farmer suicides accounted for 8.7 percent of all suicide attempts in the country in 2013.[9]

Legal Aspects of Suicide

Laws are made for the well-being of the people in society, so they should change with the times. There are two schools of thought on Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code."[10] According to one point of view, the state has an obligation to society for the well-being of the people, so penal provisions for a failed suicide attempt are appropriate. A second point of view is that punishing someone who has ended in failure in their attempt to commit suicide will be like punishing them twice.

Prior to actually undertaking on the apex court's hold on the farmers' suicide, it is critical to understand the definition of suicide. According to the world famous Webster's Dictionary, suicide is defined as "the act or instance of taking one's own life knowingly and willingly and consciously, particularly by a person of years of discretion and of sound mind." In other words, it is possible to end one's own life for any reason. The act of suicide completely absolves the person of all liabilities. If a suicide attempt fails, the law comes into play, and the person who attempted to commit suicide faces criminal charges for his actions.

The Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sec. 309, states that "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." The above sections have been widely interpreted by various courts in India, whether citizens have the right to suicide or not.

Subsequently, a perishing man who is critically ill or in a diligent vegetative state can be allowed to end it by untimely termination of his life. Truth be told, these are not instances of quenching life yet just of speeding up the course of normal demise which has effectively been initiated. In such cases, causing death would bring about the finish of his languishing. Thus section 309 as a law should be amended suitably keeping in view the kind of people who attempt suicide. The section ought to be corrected to rebuff just the people who attempt to get away from discipline because of other criminal liabilities barring the individuals who endeavour it out of sheer dissatisfaction, melancholy or because of living in such conditions that would summon self-destructive musings.[11]

The crime of abetment of suicide has two main components. The first is a suicide death. The second component is the accused's intent to aid in such suicide. Legally, whether a death is a suicide or not is a factual determination, which means evidence, must be evaluated to determine whether or not the death was a suicide. In popular parlance, the term "suicide" is liberally applied to all cases of self-destruction, but suicide is never assumed.[12]

A suicide determination is made when the deceased person is understood to have known the likely outcome of what the self-harm is about to do to the person and still does it intentionally. Once such a determination is made, the accused's intent is revealed.[13]

In State v. Sanjay Kumar Bhatia[14] We explained the law in the related case Crl. R. 126/84 and remanded the cases for trial. Despite our conclusion that the Magistrate's interpretation of the law is incorrect, we do not intend to retry this case. The reason for this is that this is a charge sheet for attempting suicide under Section 309 of the IPC. A young man allegedly attempted suicide, presumably due to over emotionalism. It's ironic that Section 309 of the IPC is still in our Penal Code. As a result, a young boy driven to such desperation that he seeks his own life would have managed to escape human punishment if he had succeeded, but is now bound by the police because the attempt failed. Suicide should be criminally punishable in this day and age of proponents of euthanasia. Instead of lamenting the fact that there are such social strains that a young man (the hope of tomorrow) is driven to suicide, society compounds its lack of adequate by trying to treat the boy as a criminal. Instead of sending the young boy to a psychiatric clinic, it sends him to mingle with criminals, as if hoping that he will fall foul of the Penal Code's punitive sections in the future. The continuation of Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code is an anachronism unbefitting of a civilised society like ours. Medical clinics for such social outcasts are unquestionably necessary, but police and prisons are not. The concept itself is repulsive. This concept seeks to meet the challenge of modern urban social strains and competitive economy by ruthless suppression of mere symptoms; however, this attempt will fail. Humane civilisations I, as well as socially oriented and conscious penology, am required. Many criminal offences are the result of an unjust society and a socially decadent outlook on love between young people that is thwarted by false consideration of caste, community, or social pretensions. No surprise that as long as society refuses to face this reality, the exercise equipment will invoke provisions such as Section 300 of the IPC.[15]

In this case, the accused is accused of attempting suicide by consuming tik twenty on October 5, 1981. Challan was installed on June 4, 1982. In this case, at least, we see no reason why the investigation could not be completed within six months. On October 5, 1981, the accused was arrested. Except for determining what he had consumed, no investigation was to be conducted. Except for one reason, a person does not consume overall appearance twenty for any other reason. There was no compelling reason why the prosecution should be allowed to extend its investigation further than six months. This is a case where, if the Magistrate had been moved, he would have denied permission. As a result, the investigation must be halted. The respondent has had enough misery; he was arrested in October 1981, a challan was issued on June 4, 1982,]

and the evidence of Public Witness -1 was recorded only on April 5, 1983. We see no reason to subject the respondent to any further ordeal at the hands of the Courts. He has had enough traumatic experience, and we therefore refuse to overturn the trial court's decision acquitting the respondent. As a result, this appeal will be denied.[16]

In Maruti Sripati Dubal v. State of Maharashtra"[17] The petitioner was a police officer. In 1981, he was involved in an accident and sustained numerous injuries that harmed his mental health more than his physical health. He was eventually diagnosed with dizziness or fright, as well as schizophrenia. Mental illness impairs the patient's thinking ability, and he was later subjected to shock treatment. As the family's income declined, Dubal's wife sought another job and was later promised a hawker's licence. However, due to stumbling blocks in bureaucracy and its dealings, she was unable to obtain the licence. The Minister of State Government sent the constable a letter addressed to the Municipal Commissioner in order to expedite his procedures for obtaining a hawker's licence in his wife's name. As a result, he had to personally deliver the letter to the Municipal Commissioner. However, the security at that location was impolite, and the petitioner attempted to march in. Tired of his life's frustrating events, he poured kerosene on himself and attempted to light a fire. Fortunately, he was stopped by police and charged with Section 309 for attempting suicide and arrested. He was later released. According to the petitioner, he has no recollection of what occurred. To him, the attempt to start a fire is still a distant memory. He stated that it occurred while his wife and children were away and he had nothing else to think about. Because of his mental state, he was unable to obtain legal protection, and the petitioner was prosecuted under Sec. 309.[18]

In 1986, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court ruled that Section 309 IPC violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. According to the court, the right to life includes the right to end one's life. It also drew an analogy between positive and negative freedoms enshrined in Part III (Fundamental Rights) of the Indian Constitution, stating that the right to speak under Article 19(1)(a), i.e. Freedom of Speech and Expression, entails the right not to communicate. The court also rejected the argument that Section 309 of the IPC acts as a deterrent to future acts of suicidal attempt, ruling that such people require psychiatric treatment instead,[19] The court ruled that Section 309 of the IPC is in violation of the Indian Constitution. Furthermore, Section 309 of the IPC violates Articles 14, 19, and 21. The court stated that trying to deal with the details of the case is inappropriate because the petitioner's trial is unfair. As a result, the petitioner's pending prosecution was quashed, as were all court cases under Section 309 of the IPC currently waiting in some of the state's courts. The rule was made unbreakable. The Law Commission of Indin's 42nd Report, released in June 1971, concentrated on the repeal of Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code. In addition, a Bill to repeal Section 309 of the IPC was initiated in Rajya Sabha in 1979, but it ceased due to the dissolution of the Lok Sabha at the time,[20]  In P. Rathinam v. Union of India[21] The Supreme Court ruled that Section 309 of the IPC violated Article 21. The Court stated that Section 309 of our Penal Code should be removed from the statute book in order to humanise our penal laws. It is a cruel and irrational provision that may result in punishing a person twice (doubly) who has suffered agony and would face ignominy if he did not commit suicide. The Court also stated that the term "life" in Article 21 refers to the right to live with human dignity rather than mere animal existence. As a result, the right to live entails the right not to live a forced life. A person's right to life cannot be forced to his detriment or dislike. The Court also stated that Section 309 does not violate Article 14 because the proposition that the section treats various attempts at suicide with the same measure is incorrect. Because the Section only provides for a maximum punishment of one year or the imposition of a fine, the sentence can be tailored based on the nature, extensiveness, and gravitational pull of the attempt. Furthermore, the Court clarified that suicide is not a violation of public policy. When an offence is committed, the offender is punished in order to protect society from the depravities of a dangerous individual. However, in the case of suicide, the person is not causing harm to others, so the question of protecting society does not arise. Lastly, the Court stated that no one has a monopolistic right over human life. Such power can only be claimed by God. As a result, the argument that committing suicide undermines the State's monopolistic power to take life falls flat.[22]

In Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab On March 21, 1996, the Supreme Court of India ruled that Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 did not violate Articles 14 or 21 of the Indian Constitution. As a result, Section 309 of the IPC became constitutionally valid. We may believe that death is a natural process, but the Honorable Court believes that taking one's own life is never a natural process. It denotes the right to live a decent life with dignity and personal liberty in Article 21. Any aspect of life that contains an essence of dignity must be read in conjunction with Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, rather than those aspects that detract from or extinguish it. Articles 19 and 21 must be read in conjunction with one another. Article 19 is not a sacrosanct right. Correspondingly, Article 21 contains both positive and negative elements. As a result, the right to life includes the right to die. However, this does not imply that the judiciary condones suicide or attempts to commit suicide.[24]

In the current case, a Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court overruled this. The court was largely of the opinion that the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity but only up to the individual's natural lifespan and does not include the right to die. Furthermore, it was determined that Section 306 constitutes a separate offence and can exist independently of Section 309. Overall, it appears that the court's reasoning is founded on sound principles and supported by compelling arguments. However, given the importance of the issue at hand, a nuanced reading of the judgement is required, as it may have serious policy implications, particularly for Indian euthanasia law. The court diligently tried to refute the allegory of advantages and disadvantages of freedoms enshrined in the Fundamental Rights, which had been incorrectly used by all precedents. The court accurately holds that Article 21 of the Indian Constitution stands on its own and derives all other Fundamental Freedoms from it. As a result, the analogy is flawed, as tried to point out by the court. Furthermore, the court correctly separated Article 21 to hold that in order to attempt suicide, certain overt acts must be performed, which cannot be traced back to the right to life under Article 21.[25]

However, it could be said that the court acted with judicial decisions and avoided taking an activist stance. While the court's decision in the specific facts scenario appears to be completely sound, as a policy directive, it may require an exception, as evidenced by subsequent decisions on the issue. As the current situation is, the issue is more about the appellants' act of abetment, which cannot be justified in any way. It is argued that all humans are equal and that no one has the power to decide on somebody else's life and death. However, the court could have taken a more process. It Arti and this activist stance and issued an opinion on the overall restrictiveness of Section 309 of the IPC in relation to terminally ill patients or other cases of cuthanasia. Furthermore, while the court determined that the right to life includes the right to a dignified life, it did not rule out physician-assisted suicide for seriously ill people. The merit of this argument can only be viewed in the context of what it means to live a "dignified life." Because the court did not define "dignified," it cannot be concluded that a terminally ill person is or is not living a dignified life.[26]

In Nikhil Soni v. Union of India"[27] The Rajasthan High Court's decision will almost certainly have a different impact on the Jain community in Rajasthan as well as the rest of the country. Regrettably, it conflates a few crucial constitutional law issues and symbolises our constitutional jurisprudence's confusion over the fundamental guarantee of religious freedom. One cannot deny that Indian secularism is distinct from any other secularism in the world. When properly interpreted, the Indian Constitution does not give the courts the authority to tell us which of our beliefs and practises are required for religious practise. The High Court in Nikhil Soni set a dangerous precedent by directing the State government to move toward the abolition of Santhara and holding that the practise is tantamount to attempting suicide, which is punishable under Section 309 of the IPC.[28]                

In 2017, the Lok Sabha passed a bill to decriminalise Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This bill was passed on the grounds that the individual must be under extreme stress and thus requires sympathy. A specific clause in the bill states that the government will implement programmes to reduce suicide attempts for people who fall under Section 115(1) of the Act.