CASE ANALYSIS: P.RATHINAM Vs.

UNION OF INDIA
(1994 AIR 1844 1994 SCC (3) 394)

Submitted by : Kanak Shree Chauhan(11bal018)

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Justice B. L. HANSARIA. The main question of
the case being whether the offence of committing suicide as described under section 309 0f IPC
is to be abolished or retained. I have tried to go on with the judgment as according to the
questions formulated by the judges so as to be systematic in my analysis.

Issues : Here the petitioners hoped to get the section declared void for it violated the Article 14
and 21 and to get quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner (Nagbhusan) under
Section 309.

Critical Analysis:
The court went on to answer this basic question in great detail answering and taking in its
preview a lot that was said on the topic. While some believe that the way in which this judgment
was written it had devoided itself of original thinking and thus the court could not weave out its
own formulations1

The court has dwellet in to this issue too deep to let it be a good work of reasoning but looks like
a thesis on the topic of “right to die : An indepth Inspection” Court starts with analyzing the
judgments of three High Courts, namely Delhi, Bombay ad Andhra. And analysying the critical
commentaries on these judgments the court paves its way for further analyses by establishing
almost round about 15 detailed questions to find out if suicide is actually a crime.

The Questions being :

(1) Has Article 21 any positive content or is it merely negative in its reach?
(2) Has a person residing in India a right to die?

1
Comment on Rathinam v. Union of India by Dr. K. N. Chandrashekharan Pillai (www.ebc-
india.com/lawyer/artcles/95v3a1.htm
(3) Why is a law enacted? What object(s) it seeks to achieve?
(4) Why is a particular act treated as crime/What acts are so treated?
(5) How can crimes be prevented?
(6) Why is suicide committed?
(7) Who commits suicide? Secularisation of suicide.
(8) How suicide-prone persons should be dealt with?
(9) Is suicide a non-religious act?
(10) Is suicide immoral?
(11) Does suicide produce adverse sociological effects?
(12) Is suicide against public policy?
(13) Does commission of suicide damage the monopolistic power of the State to take life?
(14) Is apprehension of 'constitutional cannibalism' justified?
(15) Recommendation of the Law Commission of India and follow-up steps taken, if any.
(16) Global view. What is the legal position in other leading countries of the world regarding the
matter at hand?

The court has started with trying to establish the roots in the history and then coming to the
views expressed by thinkers on these questions and then to what has come out as a result of it is
compared with the notion of suicide and attempt to suicide. It is then seen if they are in
consensus or not and thus the conclusion on suicide is drawn. Which makes it nothing but an
academic work. And the judgment looks tiresome.

The court talks about building a humane view towards the ones who attempt for suicide and
greatly emphasizes the fact that such person is already going through a lot of mental agony and
pain and there is no point adding to it. The court has as to this effect done an applausable work
and gone from preventive theory to the rehabilitative approach which is the need of the hour. For
punishments only increase the suffering while providing them care, affection and psychiatric
help might restore their faith in life. For what is life if it is forced on you?
While talking of the objectives of law, what is crime, and how can they be prevented only
significant thing added to the judgment is length, for no immediate and necessary connection,
that was necessary to be probed into, was laid down.

As we come to question of Article 21 a very important question the court has cited a no. of
judgments wherin there was positive content for eg, there is rght to healthy environment,
building roads in hilly areas for development of people of that region2 etc. the court thus
establishes that Article 21 is not a mere prohibition on taking away of life but adding to it sense
and meaning and making it more productive and liveable, that it is more than mere animal
existence it is living with dignity3 Next the court comes upto The judgment of R.C. Cooper vs
Union of India4 and establishes that Every fundamental right includes the negative of that right
eg. Right to speak and not to speak, The right to trade and not to trade. And therefore if this is
true of all other rights it should be true of Article 21 too. The court here has failed to
acknowledge that all rights are not the same. Specially not Article 21 for taking away ones life
cannot be equated with not speaking or not carrying out trade for the matter of fact. Which shows
lack of original thinking for the conclusion drawn is a mere logical deduction of what has already
been stated by others.
The court then comes to another futile question as to secularization of suicide saying people of
all relegions commit suicide. Which for me is useless waste of the precious time of the court.

The court has also cited a lot many of reasons for commission of suicide and stated that all of
them include a loss of interest in carrying on with ones life. And has quoted several thinkers to
that effect and has assumed the role of a psychologist as to this point of question. Which shows
that the court has shown apathy and has tried to understand the plight of such people.

On the question of it being against religion and immoral the court points out that all the religions
include some or the other kinds of suicide for eg. Sati, Johar, Samadhi etc in Hindus which have
been celebrated by the local people which demolishes the very argument of suicide being against

2
State of HP v Umed Ram Sharma
3
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration
the religion. The court has very well refuted this critic of decriminalizing attempt to suicide by
attacking to the very basis of their ideologies.
And as to the question of morality the court has highlighted the failure of the state and society to
ensure liveable and dignified conditions of living for a large extent of society, who are forced to
live a life that is below any imaginable standard. And says that wanting to end such state of
suffering caused due to the immoral acts of others cannot be immoral. And that people
responsible for immorality cannot claim for others to be moral. This is an attack on the failure of
the state and the people in their duties. And a rebuke enough for them to realize their mistakes.
And the court has very beautifully placed such rebuke on a simple judgment as to the obscenity
of the contents of a novel.5 Which highlights that the court could have rendered a milestone
judgment if it would have resortd to its own original thinking on the topic.

We now come to the questions of adverse sociological effects and sucide as an opposition to
public policy. And for that matter nothing much needs to be said for these effects are very much
visible on the people attached to such person. They are left with no alternative but to deal with
the harsh reality that someone had taken such a harsh step. Though court did not go deep into
this question while much colud have been said here but than what has been left unsaid is obvious
to all the readers of this judgement and hence need not be spelled out. As regards to public
policy, It cannot be so for people who harm others are dangerous to society and public policy
aims at preserving piece in the society ending a tiresome journey of ones life does harm only one
person that is the suicide himself and thus no public policy is contravened. The court has gotten
into an endless analysis of what is public policy and its content which once again fails to reason
out in my mind. For there seems no reasonable justification or need for doing so and this
distracts me from wanting to read the judgment any further.

We are now fast approaching the end of our analyses of the judgment and are now to answer the
damage to the monopolistic power of state to take life. The court has rebuked this opposition
against repealing of Section 309 by stating that nobody has right over somebody’s life not even
the state and therefore claiming it as monopoly is nothing but fallacy.

5
Ranjith D Udeshi vs. State of Maharshtra
The court has then examined what has become of the law commission report on this topic, which
to be stated is that the a bill was made on these recommendations in 1972 and was passed by
Rajya Sabha in 1978 but with the dissolution of Lok Sabha in 1979 the Bill died its natural death.
The court might have done this in order to increase its understanding on the point of the view of
the state i.e. the government in this context. But this doesn’t seem to be of much help.

The final thing that court probes into is the global view on the topic, with the global view being
restricted to only two countries namely UK and US. ( I wonder why they still go on to call it a
global view and not just a comparison of the Indian status on this topic with those two countries).
The question being answered as that both these countries do not criminalize attempts to suicide
but do criminalize aiding and abetting suicides.

The court on its course established distinctions between euthanasia and suicide and lost the track
on one and two occasion to talk about euthanasia, which can be allowed for these two topics are
very much interlinked with each other.

With Delhi High Court6 paved path for repealing section 309 n grounds of want of humane
7
conduct. The Bombay High court struck it down and declared it to be violative of Article 21
and 14. On grounds that grounds of sucide should be taken into consideration and not all
sucicides are same. But the court has rejected these arguments in the following case and said
that the causes are and can be taken into consideration at the time of passing of the sentence. The
Andhra Judgment8 is a blow to the line of thought thus laid down and declares it to be valid and
sees suicide as a crime that needs to be curbed.

On the question of Article 14 it was stated that all suicides are not same and there is no strict and
all comprehensive definition of suicide and therefore to deal with them in a straight jacket
formula that of all suicides are crimes is flawed in its very bais and thus needs to be done away
with. The court has thus saying this paved path for judicial discretion and has highlighted the
importance of looking into the background of the person in such cases.

6
State vs Sanjay Kumar Bhatial
7
Maruti Shripati Dubal vs State of Maharshtra
8
Chenna jagdeeswara vs State of Andhra pradesh
Conclusion

It is a cruel and irrational provision, and it may result in punishing a person again (doubly) who
has suffered agony and would be undergoing ignominy because of his failure to commit suicide.
Then an act of suicide cannot be said to be against religion, morality or public policy, and an act
of attempted suicide has no baneful effect on society. Further, suicide or attempt to commit it
causes no harm to others, because of which State's interference with the personal liberty of the
persons concerned is not called for.
We, therefore, hold that Section 309 violates Article 21, and so, it is void. The court talks of
humanization and globalization but fails to characterize the reasons for its judgments the
judgement remains to be flawed as far as giving a well reasoned and knitted out judgment is
concerned what we have is a work of high end literary fashion.
Section 309 of the Penal Code was declared as unconstitutional and hence void And the
proceedings pending against the petitioner were also quashed.
Though the judgment may be called by the judges as a "search for the social dynamics of
criminal law, the functional theory of sentencing and the therapeutic reach of punitive arts, to
catch up with social sciences relevant to criminal justice and to link up prison jurisprudence with
constitutional roots", what remains to be noticed is that it was mere compilation of literary work,
which may have been applaudable if it were an article, but as a judgment it has taken away the
opportunity from the court to formulate a new synthesis… what court has done is to evaluate
thesis and antithesis but it has failed in synthesizing the available information to formulate a new
theory of its own making. And thus has deprived the court of every opportunity of setting a
milestone.