When Can Official Superiors Be Liable For Abetment Of Suicide Of Employee? Supreme Court Explains
In a recent case, the Supreme Court explained when can the official superiors be held liable for the abetment of suicide of their junior official.
The bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra reasoned that behind the act of suicide can be categorized into two broad categories i.e., where the deceased is having sentimental ties with the accused and the second category would be where the deceased is having relations with the accused in his or her official capacity.
“First, where the deceased is having sentimental ties or physical relations with the accused and the second category would be where the deceased is having relations with the accused in his or her official capacity. In the case of former category sometimes a normal quarrel or the hot exchange of words may result into immediate psychological imbalance, consequently creating a situation of depression, loss of charm in life and if the person is unable to control sentiments of expectations, it may give temptations to the person to commit suicide, e.g., when there is relation of husband and wife, mother and son, brother and sister, sister and sister and other relations of such type, where sentimental tie is by blood or due to physical relations.”
The Court added that the second category i.e., where the deceased has official relations with the accused doesn't warrant much expectation because here the deceased needs to only discharge the official duties entrusted to him in lieu of consideration in the form of salary or wages.
“In the case of second category the tie is on account of official relations, where the expectations would be to discharge the obligations as provided for such duty in law and to receive the considerations as provided in law. In normal circumstances, relationships by sentimental tie cannot be equated with the official relationship.”
“The reason being different nature of conduct to maintain that relationship. The former category leaves more expectations, whereas in the latter category, by and large, the expectations and obligations are prescribed by law, rules, policies and regulations.”, the court differentiated.
The aforesaid discussion was made by the Court while deciding the case where the relatives of the deceased (who committed suicide) alleged that the deceased's senior officials (Appellants) had humiliated and harassed him, forcing him to take Voluntary Retirement from the Job. They alleged that the Appellant's cruel behavior towards the deceased instigated him to commit suicide.
Granting relief to the Appellants, the Court quashed the pending criminal case under Section 306 of IPC (Abetment to Suicide) and noted that the harassment and humiliation cannot be termed as instigation to commit suicide without there being material to show that the appellants intended the deceased to commit suicide.
“The test that the Court should adopt in this type of cases is to make an endeavour to ascertain on the basis of the materials on record whether there is anything to indicate even prima facie that the accused intended the consequences of the act, i.e., suicide.”, the court said.
In essence, the Court meant that unless the ingredient of Section 306 IPC is met, a mere humiliation & harassment faced by the employee couldn't be said to be an instigation for committing a suicide.
The Court linked the present case to the second category where the deceased expectations from the accused are prescribed by the law. This means a small quarrel or heated exchange between the employer and employee relating to the official work allotted to the employee could not be aimed to instigate the employee to commit suicide.
Also From Judgment: Unnecessary Prosecutions In Abetment Of Suicide Cases Due To Inability Of Courts To Apply Correct Principles Of Law : Supreme Court
Case Title: Nipun Aneja and Others Versus State of Uttar Pradesh
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 786