Delhi High Court: The Employer’s Severe Behaviour Is Not A Reason To Prosecute Him For The Employee’s Death

Last Updated on November 5, 2024 by Arti Kumari

The Court pointed out that, unless the employer has criminal intent, judgments made while performing his duties may put the employee through difficulty, but this does not amount to abetment of suicide.

An employer who makes severe decisions in the course of his work cannot always be held accountable for the suicide of an employee who is impacted by those decisions, according to a recent Delhi High Court observation, unless the employer had the criminal intent to cause the employee to commit suicide.

According to the Court, an employer may make judgments while performing his duties that could put the worker through difficulty, but this does not amount to abetment of suicide unless the employer has the criminal intent to do so.

In reversing a trial court summons to Dr. GK Arora, the former principal of Delhi University’s BR Ambedkar College, and a senior assistant named Ravinder Singh (petitioners) in a 2013 suicide abetment case, Justice Amit Sharma made the observation.

According to this Court, a person in a particular position, whether in the public or private sector, must make judgments during the course of their work that might occasionally be difficult and cause hardship for an employee. The Court noted that the same cannot be considered an activity that would amount to incitement or abetment under Section 306 of the IPC in the absence of the necessary mens rea.

The decision of the trial court to summon the petitioners in relation to the 2013 suicide of a former college employee who was a woman was contested by the petitioners.

In 2013, after making a statement to the police, the female employee self-immolated in front of the Delhi Secretariat and later passed away from her wounds.

In both her statement and suicide note, the deceased employee accused the petitioners and other authorities—including the late Sheila Dikshit, the Delhi Chief Minister at the time, and the vice chancellor of Delhi University—of failing to stand by her.

Significantly, she claimed that the petitioners had harassed her physically and psychologically in addition to overwhelming her with work. She went on to say that her concerns of this kind of harassment had gone unanswered by higher officials. She further asserted that in 2012, she was wrongfully dismissed from her position.

The Court did conclude, however, that the relevant authorities had adequately reviewed and resolved the dead employee’s prior complaints.

The Court further noted that the deceased employee’s death occurred more than a year after her departure from employment. It was observed that the petitioners had not spoken to the dead employee throughout this time period or taken any actions that would have led to her suicide.

Nothing in the evidence shows that the petitioners had any kind of communication with the deceased after she was fired and right before her suicide attempt. In actuality, the petitioners have not been accused of any overt or covert actions that occurred close to the deceased’s suicide attempt, the court stated.

The Court came to the conclusion that the trial court order did not clarify how the accusations in the suicide note were used to establish a case of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), especially when the police had attempted to file a closure report claiming that there was insufficient evidence to support such a claim.

Thus, it nullified the trial court’s ruling.

“After thorough investigation, all of the deceased’s concerns were closed. Petitioner No. 1 had no direct authority over the several statutory entities that handled the aforementioned complaints. In actuality, the deceased’s grievance in the suicide note was not only directed at the current petitioners but also at other individuals listed. The Vice Chancellor of Delhi University and the Hon. Chief Minister of Delhi were even held accountable in the aforementioned note. Aside from the current chargesheet, which exonerates the petitioners, the National Commission for Women and the Shri B.L. Garg Commission established an inquiry committee to look into the attempted suicide episode. Consequently, given the current case’s facts and circumstances, the current petitions are allowed the court said.

Dr. GK Arora and Ravinder Singh were represented by advocates Richa Kapoor, Kunal Anand, Jai Batra, Saloni Mahajan, Sandesh Kumar, Sakshi, and Atika Singh.

Amit Ahlawat, an additional public prosecutor, represented the State.

Case Title: Dr. G.K. Arora vs. State & Anr.

Citation No.: CRL.M.C. 5431/2014 & CRL.M.C. 5817/2014