India: Guidance to Determine the Senior official’s Culpability in an Employee’s Suicide Case

Authors: Ivana Chatterjee, Snehal Walia

In a judgement delivered on 3 October 2024, the Supreme Court of India provided guidance for determining the culpability of senior officials in an employee’s suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Supreme Court of India listed out various actions on the part of accused that can amount to abetment of suicide in cases where the accused and deceased have a professional relationship.

The case of Nipun Aneja and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh[1] pertains to the instance of an employee’s suicide committed in a hotel where his senior officials had scheduled an official meeting. In this case, the Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) provided guidance for determining the culpability of senior officials in an employee’s suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”). An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court by the company’s senior officials (“Appellants”) against the Allahabad High Court’s (“High Court”) order wherein it had refused to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them for abetting an employee’s suicide.

On 3 November 2006, the Appellants had scheduled a meeting with the company’s employees in a hotel, which also included the deceased employee who committed suicide. (For the ease of understanding, the deceased employee is referred to as “Employee X”.) Post this meeting, Employee X committed suicide in his room in the same hotel. Employee X’s brother filed a criminal complaint alleging that Employee X’s suicide was instigated by the Appellants. The FIR stated that the Appellants had been pressurizing Employee X to opt for a voluntary retirement scheme (“VRS”). Certain other employees, who were present in the meeting held on 3 November 2006, alleged that the Appellants demoted them and Employee X for refusing to opt for the VRS. They also stated that the Appellants further humiliated and harassed Employee X for refusing to opt for the VRS during the said meeting. Based on the above, the police initiated criminal proceedings against the Appellants, which were sought to be quashed before the High Court. However, as stated above, the High Court rejected the Appellant’s application.

The Supreme Court, while hearing the appeal filed against the High Court’s order, held that the commission of suicide must be a result of the direct instigation by the accused in order to constitute an offence under Section 306 of the IPC. It also opined that in cases where the accused and deceased have a professional relationship, it should be seen whether the materials placed on record make it evidently clear that the accused intended for the deceased to commit suicide. The Supreme Court further listed out the following actions on the part of the accused that can be considered as abetment of suicide:

• Unbearable harassment or torture causing the deceased to commit suicide as the only option.
• Exploitation of the deceased’s emotional vulnerability leading him/her to commit suicide.
• Threatening the deceased with dire consequences to the extent that he/she believes that suicide is the only way out.
• Making false allegations that may damage the deceased’s reputation causing him/her to commit suicide.

 

Given the above, the Supreme Court pointed out that the High Court was wrong in ruling that the harassment and demotion of Employee X by the Appellants amounted to instigation for him to commit suicide. Therefore, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against the Appellants for abetment of Employee X’s suicide.

Key Action Points for Human Resources and In-house Counsel

In the case, the Supreme Court has provided much-needed clarity on the difference between general harassment at the workplace and abetment of suicide by listing out the actions on the part of the senior officials which can be considered as abetment of an employee’s suicide. Employers must be mindful of this difference since the former can be redressed as per the company’s internal policies, but the latter is a criminal offence that can lead to imprisonment and imposition of fine under the IPC.