AL Response -Section 306 IPC and EY Employee

The Delhi High Court has rejected a summons against the head of BR Ambedkar College for abetting the suicide of a former employee, [Dr. G.K. Arora vs. State & Anr.] with the judge saying that “sometimes the employer, during the course of his duty has to make decisions that could cause hardship to an employee but it does not constitute the offence of abetment.”

Question: What do you think about this judgment in light of the debate around the death of Ernst & Young’s Anna Sebastian Perayil and overworking in India? Is it a significant judgment? Have other employers been charged under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)? What can an employer do in a situation where an employee believes their grievances have not been heard to make sure they are not having to defend themselves against a similar charge?

Answer: The judgment in Dr. G.K. Arora vs. State & Anr. 2024 is relevant and reiterates some of the aspects that were provided for in other key judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India including a recent judgement (of October 03, 2024) in the matter titled Nipun Aneja vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan 2021 and another one M. Arjunan v. State 201, etc., which shed important light on the scope and interpretation of abetment under Section 306 of the IPC (now Section 108 of BNS[1]). These cases help clarify the circumstances under which an individual or entity, including an employer, can be held liable for incitement that leads to self-harm or suicide, thereby broadening our understanding of the legal framework around abetment.

Hon’ble Supreme Court has provided that the ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 306 of the IPC[2] (Abetment of Suicide), would stand fulfilled if the suicide is committed (by the deceased) due to direct and alarming encouragement / incitement by the accused leaving no option but to commit suicide. The Court also discussed Section 107 of the IPC (now Section 45 of BNS) (Abetment of a thing) and held that this section requires instigation or conspiracy or an act or illegal omission adding the commission of an offence (such as suicide). The Court also mentioned some of the factors that should be considered while determining if there was abetment to suicide or not in the circumstances of a particular case:

(a)   If the accused has created such a situation of intolerable harassment, that suicide is the only escape?

(b)  If the accused has exploited the deceased emotionally, leading him to feel worthless or undeserving of life, and hence committing suicide?

(c)   If the accused has threatened the deceased of dire consequences such as inflicting harm to his family or extreme financial loss, so that suicide is the only option available with him?

(d)  If the accused has made false statements against him which defamed the deceased and led to loss of dignity, hence resulting in his suicide.

Hon’ble Delhi High Court, having considered several important judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. G.K. Arora vs. State & Anr. 2024, held that person holding a certain post, whether in private sector or public sector, in the course of duties have to take certain decisions which at time can be harsh causing hardship to an employee. The same cannot, in the absence of the requisite mens rea, be termed as an action which would amount to incitement / abatement in terms of Section 306 of the IPC. There cannot be an absolute rule and each case will depend on its facts and circumstance.

There are several judicial pronouncements, and all the aspects taken into account, by the relevant Indian High Courts and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, would play a significant role in matters where a complaint is made about Abetment of Suicide (and Abatement of a thing).

There is no one-size-fits-all approach to addressing employee concerns, as each individual may face unique issues of varying severity. It is difficult to suggest what an employer do in a situation where an employee believes their grievances have not been heard to make sure they are not having to defend themselves against a similar charge, it would be advisable that employer and employee relationship building measures could minimise possible extreme steps by an employee(s). It would be advisable that programs are created by employers which involve and inculcate elements of empathy, sympathy, mutual respect, trust and support. Also if needed professional support is sought and provided, to the relevant managers in guiding how a relationship could be handled, and similarly to non-managers to ensure that any doubts or concerns could be timely addressed in moments of need.

An open-door policy should be implemented, allowing employees to freely discuss their concerns without fear of retaliation or the threat of dismissal for voicing differing opinions. Additionally, suggestion box approach could be followed by the employer and employees besides propagating a whistle blower policy including undertaking immediate steps when an allegation of harassment / misconduct surfaces. 

[1] Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)

[2] now Section 108 of BNS