CASE ANALYSIS OF P RATHINAM VS UNION OF INDIA

Submitted by – Shashank Shekhar,

409, 1st Semester A

CASE SUMMARY

P Rathinam vs Union of India was the first case in India to raise the issue of right to die
before the Supreme court of India. The Supreme court of India entertained the writ petition.
The major question that this case answered and addressed was that if the offence of
committing suicide under section 309 of the Indian Penal Code is somewhere conflicting with
the article 21 of the Indian Constitution that provides right to live. Further the case discussed
the status of the Indian citizens with regard to the right to die.

FACTS OF THE CASE

 The petitioner had attempted a suicide attempt due to an unruly circumstance that had
risen. A legal proceedings was initiated against the petitioner under the section 306 of
The Indian Penal Code.
 The petitioner challenged this proceeding by filing a writ petition in the Supreme
Court of India questioning the validity of section 309 of IPC with article 21 of the
Indian constitution.

ARGUEMENTS BY THE PETITIONER

The main issue that the petitioner raised was whether the section 309 of the IPC violates the
Article 21 of the Indian constitution.

Sec 309 lays provisions and rule laid down with regard to the attempt to commit suicide. It
reads whosever attempts to commit suicide and does any act towards the commission of such
offence, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for the term which may extend to one
year or with fine or with both.
Article 21 reads protection of life and personal liberty. No person shall be deprived of his life
or personal liberty except to procedure established by law.

Article 21 confers right to live as a positive right but every law carries another aspect. Here
right not to live is the other aspect of article 21 that has not been mentioned in this article.
Article 19 of the Indian constitution that confers freedom of speech and expression and also
includes the other aspect that is right to remain silent. Another such right is Freedom to form
associations that is deemed legal and also freedom to move ; the other aspect of the right has
also been conferred that is not to join any association or move anywhere. Following the
implications for the provisions of the article 21 the right to live must also contain right not to
live or right to die or right to terminate one’s life. Taking the reference of the case Maruti
Shripati dubal vs State of Maharashtra where Sawant J quashed the prosecution of the
petitioner under section 309 of the IPC on its ultra vires violative nature of article 21 on the
same arguments given by the learned counsel of the petitioner.

Further the counsel argued upon the reasons for the acquittal of the petitioner in the case case
Maruti Shripati dubal vs State of Maharashtra; as to why people commit suicides? Reasons
being some unbearable physical ailments, mental or psychological diseases, socially dreaded
diseases, disablement and other bodily imbalances debarring these people from the natural
care of their own body and normal day to day activities. Raising hardships of the life to such
extent where the persons sets up a mind that nothing genuine can be achieved or dreams can
be attained. The extent of relevancy in the P Rathinam vs Union of India is optimum. As
article 21 provides citizens not just right to live but to live with dignity. But the mental
degradation that occurs before an attempt of suicide destroys the dignity because of the
thought of the people of society deeming such people as comparatively weaker to majority of
its being. The Bombay High Court in the judgement of the case Maruti Shripati dubal vs
State of Maharashtra gave another reason to terminate the section 309 of IPC because it does
not draw any boundary between serious and non serious attempts of the suicides. The judges
gave the instance of the philosophers, sociologists and moralists agreed as to what amounts to
commitment of suicides. The nature of circumstance and the effect on one person would be
different as compared to other. But the section 309 of the IPC is arbitrary as per learned
judges and it treats all attempts of suicides by the means of same measure.
 ARGUEMENTS BY THE RESPONDENT

The major issue given by the respondent was is suicide against the public policy?

The learned counsel on the behalf of the union of India; argued suicide being contrary to
public policy. He considered public policies above the preservation of human life. The
counsel quoted example of the criminal where they being punished by capital punishment; it
is done in order to make the society free and fearless of some ill human thinking. The act of
the state here is justified as the punishment of the offenders of law is in respect to public
policies and state isn’t hesitant to take away the life.

JUDGEMENT AND OBSERAVTION

The hon’ble Supreme court of India the verdict in the favour of the petitioner .

The court made an observation that the contentions given by the learned counsel on the
behalf of the respondent had specifically mentioned as to which public policy would be
hampered by suicides. Further discussing that in suicides the attempter tends to bring harm to
himself or herself but the criminals tend to bring harm to the society at large.

CONCLUSION

Article 21 is a collection of endless and doubtless to say as the welfare piece of legislation.
Time is the extent and there is redefinition after a span of time showing its evergreen and
versatile nature. The article is more of a judicial interpretation of legal provisions that is
being embedded in the lines for the welfare of common mass. Article 21 is one of the
strongest legal provision that requires judicial wisdom. The judgement that section 309 of
IPC is contrary to article 21 itself says the effectiveness by which article 21 can implemented.
 CRITICALLY ANALYZED WITH TOOLS OF LOGIC

 The learned counsel argued that article 19 provides right to freedom of speech and
expression but also an exception i.e. freedom to remain silent, on the same note article
21 should provide right not to live. But the learned counsel made this conclusion on a
premise that if an exception or other aspect is present in freedom of speech and
expression; then an exception must be present to the right to live i.e. right not to live.
Thus, ends up committing the fallacy of Accident. Fallacy of accident is deductively
valid but unsound argument occurring in arguments based on generalization. It simply
destructs the exception to the rule of thumb. This fallacy was rectified in the case of
Gian kaur vs. State of Punjab, where the main issue was whether section 309 of IPC
was constitutionally valid. The judge overruled the judgment of P. Rathinam vs.
Union of India, after detecting the fallacy in the argument of the petitioner followed in
the judgment without being rectified.
 The other fallacy that is committed here is appeal to pity. The judgment of the case,
Maruti Shripati Dubal vs. State of Maharashtra; the counsel with the help of this
judgment presented an argument that evoked emotions. The physical ailments, mental
or psychological diseases, socially dreaded diseases, disablement and other bodily
imbalances that takes away normal day to day activities made these people weaker
than majority of the beings of the society. Thus, the learned counsel was arguing on
the basis of the non cognitive note. The appeal to pity fallacy occurs when an arguer
attempts to support a conclusion by merely evoking pity from the reader or listener.
The pity may be directed towards some third part or the arguer himself.
 The learned counsel on the behalf of the respondent precisely defined the arguments
on which he presented. He mentioned that suicides are contrary to the public policy
but he didn’t specifically mentioned as to which public policy in particular would be
hampered. The judge was able to find the absence of the precise definition and
pointed it out in his judgment. Had it been a precise definition the judge would had
not been able to counter this argument given by the learned counsel. Here public
policy is itself a broad term and needs specification.