P RATHINAM V UNION OF INDIA [1994 AIR 1844]

 P RATHINAM V UNION OF INDIA [1994 AIR 1844]

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE: P. Rathinam and Nagbhushan Patnaik had filed petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code. The Supreme Court took into consideration various judicial and legal thinking on the subject matter, some of which are briefly discussed in the article.  

 FACTS OF THE CASE: was the first case that the Supreme Court of India decided in respect of Section 309, IPC. The provision criminalized an attempt to commit suicide. Suicide is generally defined as ‘the action of killing oneself intentionally’.

This is the only section in the Indian Penal Code where punishment could be meted for an unsuccessful act only and never for a successful one. In other words, suicide is not a crime, its attempt is.

REASON FOR APPROACHING THE COURT F LAW: If a person makes the decision to terminate his life and the same results in death, the person is relieved from agony, pain, and suffering. But if the person is so unfortunate to survive, he is presented before the Court on the charge of ‘attempted suicide’. It is unfair, to say the least, that a person who is already suffering, is punished because provision like s.309 still finds mention in our Penal Code. The provision has been continuing since the IPC was drafted in 1860 during the British Raj, even though the Britishers have long ago, already amended their provisions to decriminalize attempt to commit suicide.

Therefore, this petition was filed before the Supreme Court to declare the section as void.

FINDINGS OF THE COURT: The Supreme Court also drew a parallel between the other fundamental rights – just as the right to freedom of speech under Article 19 gives the right to speak but also includes the right to not speak, the right to live under Article 21 includes the right not to live. Thus, Section 309 was held to be unconstitutional.

The petitioners had assailed the validity of Section 309 by contending that the same was violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and the prayer made was to declare the section void.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Campbell v. Paddington Corporation [1911-1 KB 869]

  Campbell v. Paddington Corporation [1911-1 KB 869] Background: In that case the plaintiff was in possession of a house in London from the windows of which there was an uninterrupted view of part of a certain main thoroughfare along which it was announced that a public procession was to pass.  Reason to approach the Court of Law: The plaintiff rented out certain seats on the first and second floors of the house in order to see the procession. The defendants, a Metropolitan Borough in pursuance of a resolution of their Council to that effect caused a stand to be erected as regards a certain highway in which the plaintiff’s house was situated to enable the members of the Council and their friends to view the procession. On account of this obstruction, the prospective lessees refused to come to observe the procession from the plaintiff’s house. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of damages. Decision Held: It was held in that case that the Metropolitan Borough was not enti...
Read more

BIHAR EASTERN GANGETIC FISHERMEN COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD v. SIPAHI SINGH (1977)

 BIHAR EASTERN GANGETIC FISHERMEN COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD v. SIPAHI SINGH (1977) 4 SCC 145  FACTS OF THE CASE:  The fishery rights in the Gangapath Islampur Jalkar which was with the Fishermen Cooperative Society from 1974 to 1975 for Rs. 150000 was made in favour of the respondent Sipahi Singh for the period 1975 to 1976 as a result of the public auction at which he offered the highest bid of Rs. 165000.  However, the respondent requested for a remission in the amount at which the settlement had been made in his favour, on the ground that he had suffered a heavy loss during the year 1975-76, due to the unlawful activities of the appellants and if this was not possible, then in the alternative give him a continuance of fishery rights for the years 1976-1977 and 1977-1978 so that he could recoup his losses. The Government agreed to extend the time for his fishery rights in consideration of a deposit of Rs 165000. However, the government changed its mind later and sett...
Read more