India’s new Bhartiya Nyaya Samhita (BNS) decriminalises attempted suicide, a significant departure from the British-era Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, the newly introduced Section 226 has sparked controversy. This provision criminalises attempts to commit suicide aimed at obstructing public servants, raising concerns that it could stifle protests such as hunger strikes. Critics argue that the law, under the guise of maintaining order, might target non-violent political dissent, reflecting a concerning shift in India’s legal landscape.
Historically, attempts to repeal criminalisation under Section 309 IPC have been debated, with steps taken in 2018 when the Mental Healthcare Act eased punishments, presuming those attempting suicide were under severe stress. While the new BNS provisions mark progress by removing penalties for suicide attempts, Section 226 introduces a tool that could curb dissent.
Instances like Irom Sharmila’s hunger strike against the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) highlight the complexities of using suicide provisions against protestors. In 1961, the Allahabad High Court ruled in favor of Ram Sunder Dubey, a protestor on hunger strike, stating his act was not suicide, underscoring the ambiguity in prosecuting such cases.
Legal experts have long called for repealing laws that criminalise personal distress or non-violent protests. With the omission of Section 309, critics argue that Section 226’s insertion maintains a colonial-era approach, criminalising peaceful dissent. Some fear it could disproportionately target activists using hunger strikes as a means of protest, a tactic employed historically by figures like Mahatma Gandhi and Bhagat Singh.
The judiciary, while questioning Section 309, has also weighed in on related matters like euthanasia, with cases such as Gian Kaur and Aruna Shanbaug. Though active euthanasia remains a contentious issue, the courts have recognised the need for a humane approach.
As India navigates the balance between modernization and colonial legal legacies, Section 226’s broad scope risks undermining citizens’ rights to peaceful protest, prompting calls for further legal reform.
