Decriminalizing Suicide Under The Mental Healthcare Act: Progress, Pitfalls, And Public Awareness
- IJLLR Journal
- 25 minutes ago
- 2 min read
Sachit Chahal, LL.M. (Master of Laws), University Institute of Legal Studies, Chandigarh University, Mohali, Punjab, India.
Dr. Harshita Thalwal, Associate Professor, University Institute of Legal Studies, Chandigarh University, Mohali, Punjab, India
ABSTRACT
The study traces India’s transition narrative of suicide from punitive to rights-based perspective. It connects the change with “Section 115 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017” and its presumption of indefinite stress along with the exemption from trial and punishment, and the resulting state care, treatment, and rehabilitation. The prosecution unfolds the present point in law moving away from “Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code” towards “Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023” which removes the general criminalization of attempts but introducing a targeted offence at “Section 226 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023” to describe the attempts to coerce or restrain a public servant. This article utilizes a doctrinal method based on authoritative texts and landmark judgments to demonstrate that decriminalization exists in law but only to some extent in practice as the systems in operation still lean towards investigation and charging rather than care referral. It views “Section 120 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017” as the overriding hard legal provision that should resolve conflicts with penal provisions and then questions the persistent discord caused by administrative and policing processes that operate on legacy templates where “attempt to suicide” was once an offence first. The research uses national data trends and service uptake indicators to show that legal change alone is not enough without communication, triage protocols, and robust referral pathways. The tele mental health platform such as Tele MANAS is promising, with almost six million calls handled since October 2022, but the coverage and quality differ in various languages and locations, thereby affecting the timely use of crisis intervention at the police hospital junction. The paper, through the sequence of “P Rathinam v. Union of India”, “Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab”, “Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India”, and “Common Cause v. Union of India”, creates a constitutional arc recognizing dignity and care without acknowledgment of a separate right to die. The major findings comprise the police station standard operating procedures implementation gaps, the variable hospital liaison with district mental health teams, and the limited public awareness of the State’s duty under “Section 115” which, collectively, undermine the decriminalization promise. Furthermore, the paper suggests law abiding, data conscious proposals on triage, referral, and public communication that conform to the existing statutory framework but, at the same time, argue for better care accountability.
Keywords: Decriminalization, Mental Healthcare Act 2017, Section 115, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Section 226, Abetment of suicide, Public awareness, Tele MANAS, NCRB data, India
