The Delhi High Court recently clarified that while decisions made by individuals in certain professional roles may be perceived as harsh and have significant effects on employees, these individuals cannot be held liable for abetting an employee’s suicide if criminal intent is lacking.

This observation by Justice Amit Sharma was made while overturning a trial court’s order that had summoned the former principal of B.R. Ambedkar College, Delhi University, along with a senior assistant from the principal’s office, in a 2013 case regarding the alleged abetment to suicide of a female college staffer.

“A person in a specific position, whether in the private or public sector, must sometimes make decisions that may be challenging or cause difficulties for employees,” Justice Sharma noted in his October 29 order. However, he underscored that without the necessary mens rea (criminal intent), such actions cannot constitute incitement or abetment under Section 306 of the IPC.

The court emphasized that each case must be evaluated based on its unique circumstances rather than following an absolute rule.

The two petitioners had challenged a 2014 trial court order that summoned them in connection with the death of the former employee, who, in 2013, had succumbed to burn injuries after self-immolating in front of the Delhi Secretariat. During the investigation, a purported suicide note alleged mental and physical harassment by the college principal, the senior assistant, and others.

Before her death, the woman had provided a statement to the sub-divisional magistrate, holding the petitioners and various authorities, including the Delhi University vice-chancellor and then-Chief Minister of Delhi, accountable for failing to support her. She alleged that, in addition to enduring a heavy workload and harassment from the petitioners, her complaints to higher authorities were ignored. She further claimed she was “unjustly terminated” from her job in 2012.

The High Court noted that all her complaints had been reviewed and closed by the respective authorities following an inquiry. It pointed out that her employment was terminated on March 13, 2012, while the suicide attempt took place over a year later on September 30, 2013, with no evidence suggesting any contact between the petitioners and the deceased after her termination or in the period leading up to her suicide attempt.

The court emphasized that there were no specific acts attributed to the petitioners that were proximate in time to her suicide, and it noted that her complaints were reviewed by independent statutory bodies not directly controlled by the college principal. Furthermore, her suicide note expressed grievances not only against the petitioners but also against the then-Chief Minister of Delhi and the Delhi University vice-chancellor.

The High Court also highlighted that the incident had been thoroughly investigated by committees, including one constituted by the National Commission for Women and another by the B.L. Garg Commission. Both investigations, along with the present charge sheet, resulted in the petitioners’ exoneration.