Opinion: Between Abetment And Accountability: Suicide, Criminal Liability At Workplace

In today's increasingly corporate landscape, white-collar professionals in private companies often face unprecedented workplace pressures. Toxic work environments, unrealistic performance expectations and continuous pressure from senior management increasingly push talented professionals to mental health crises and, in tragic instances, suicide. Very recently, the death by suicide of a young employee of a multinational company shook the nation by its core and highlighted the many perils of an unhealthy work atmosphere in the corporate India.

On the other hand, with the growing advent of awareness regarding mental health issues and increased sensitivity and various measures being adopted by organisations to support the mental well-being of their employees, it is being observed that organisations and their executives are facing growing risks of false allegations and manipulative threats of self-harm by their employees solely to arm twist their employers. Such recourses are being pursued with a view to give a criminal colour to an employment or civil dispute and to compel the management to succumb to the employee’s demands, which are mostly unreasonable and/or in the nature of a counterblast.

This article addresses the delicate legal balance between protecting employees’ mental health and safety and safeguarding employers’ interests under Indian law, with particular focus on abetment to suicide as enumerated in Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, (successor to Section 306, Indian Penal Code, 1860.

At the outset, it is essential to examine how the subsisting law views "abetment to suicide". Section 108 of the BNS defines abetment to suicide as: "If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."

With a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, an important question arises: how does one decipher the word "abets" and whether it can be associated with situations involving workplace interactions and stress arising therefrom?

Section 45 of the BNS defines "abetment" as consisting of the following acts:

• instigating another person to commit a particular act

• participating in a conspiracy with one or more persons to carry out that act, provided that some act or illegal omission occurs in pursuance of the conspiracy and towards the commission of that act; or

• intentionally assisting, through any act or illegal omission, in the commission of that act.

As held by the Supreme Court in such similarly situated cases, a combined reading of both the above provisions becomes essential to decode if an employee at his workplace has been subjected to such treatment so as to constitute abetment to suicide. In pursuance of the same, the word "instigation" and the threshold of its application become a crucial determining factor.

The apex court in Prakash vs State of Maharashtra held that to attract the offence of abetment to suicide, it is important to establish proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement of suicide by the accused, which must be in close proximity to the commission of suicide by the deceased. Such instigation or incitement should reveal a clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide and should put the victim in such a position that he or she would have no other option but to commit suicide.

The aforesaid position was further extrapolated by the apex court in the context of professional settings in the recent case of Nipun Aneja Versus State of Uttar Pradesh, which made a crucial distinction between relationships that are personal and those that are professional. The aforesaid case involved employee of a large multinational corporation allegedly subjected to pressure to accept voluntary retirement.

The court distinguished between sentimental relationships and official relationships governed by employment policies and organizational structures. In professional settings, the court held that the threshold for establishing criminal liability under Section 108 BNS is significantly higher.

The court articulated four crucial questions that must be examined:

• Did the accused create unbearable harassment leaving no escape but suicide?

• Did they exploit emotional vulnerability by making the professional feel worthless?

• Did they threaten dire personal consequences? and

• Did they make false damaging allegations affecting professional reputation?

The aforesaid questions and their application form the foundation for determining whether workplace conduct crosses the threshold to criminal abetment to suicide.

Accordingly, the threshold of abetment to suicide in workplace environments is quite high and cannot be wholly based on far-fetched expectations of welfare outside the scope of terms and conditions as agreed upon by the parties or by the force of law. This stance is supported by the judgment of the apex court in Mariano Anto Bruno v. State, wherein it was held that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC (108 BNS) is not sustainable. The requirement of offending action being proximate to the time of occurrence has been upheld by later cases as well.

However, it does not mean that it is not possible for an employer/senior management official to be booked under Section 108 BNS. The Supreme Court in Ude Singh v. State of Haryana held that if the accused's continuous course of conduct creates a situation leaving the deceased perceiving no other escape except suicide, or if the accused systematically tarnishes the victim's professional self-esteem and self-respect to drive them to suicide, abetment may be established. Similarly, in Praveen Pradhan v. State of Uttaranchal, proceedings continued where an employer forced excessive working hours, constantly humiliated the professional in front of peers, pressured resignation, and allegedly stated that any competent person would have committed suicide. This persistent, intense harassment coupled with specific suicidal language crossed the criminal threshold.

However, it is important to note that the courts have consistently held that each case depends on its facts, and the threshold of the sensitivity of the victim must be considered on a case-to-case basis. The inquiry must focus on the objective severity and targeted nature of the conduct, not merely the subjective reaction of the employee. Consequently, as the aforesaid metrics are subjective in nature, there cannot be a straightjacketed formula for determining the same, and it must be arrived at from the facts and circumstances of each case.

Having said the above, there are instances wherein workplace harassment is indeed evidenced in various forms. Moreover, such harassment frequently takes the form of professional channels, such as public humiliation during meetings, intentional career sabotage, threats of termination without cogent reason, or exclusion from opportunities and projects intended to harm one's reputation and status in the workplace.

Such examples also include forced resignations under duress, transfers to positions below qualifications or compensation, and performance reviews used as harassment tools. However, as discussed above, whether such acts actually constitute abetment to suicide must be carefully examined on the metrics of the facts and circumstances of each case.

At this juncture, an important question arises, what then is the solution for the employees when they are faced with such structural forms of harassment? While the employees would not always have the recourse of holding the employers responsible for the aforesaid conduct of the employers by the claim of abetment of suicide, BNS also criminalizes conduct that creates hostile work environments, including obscene acts under Section 296, intimidation under Section 351, and harassment under Section 75. Accordingly, employees may lodge complaints with Internal Committees, file police complaints under relevant BNS sections, or initiate civil suits for damages.

With the growing trend of employees using (or rather misusing) Section 108 BNS to arm twist their senior/managers at workspaces, private companies and senior executives require substantial protection against such frivolous allegations, particularly given the reputational damage such allegations can cause to high-ranking professionals.

For white-collar employees, the distinction is thus critical: performance-based decisions, transfers, reorganizations, or even terminations of employment, if made through legitimate procedures and documented appropriately, cannot automatically be construed as criminal instigation merely because the employee subsequently commits suicide or attempts to do the same.

In Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat, the Court quashed proceedings where a superior officer criticized an employee's work performance, holding that professional feedback and performance management, absent evidence of malice or intent to drive the person to suicide, do not constitute abetment. Similarly, in Netai Dutta v. State of West Bengal, the Court held that mere mention in a suicide note without specific allegations of deliberate instigation is insufficient to establish criminal liability, thereby reaffirming the stringent requirements for criminal liability to be imposed under Section 108 of the BNS.

The subsisting position of law acknowledges that, when combined with specific intent and observable causation, systematic, targeted workplace behaviour intended to undermine professional standing and self-respect may transcend into criminal territory of abetment to suicide. However, just the fact that an organisation chooses to operate their business in a manner wherein tough decisions of professional nature has to be taken, the same cannot be construed as them abetting suicide on their employees.

Accordingly, all such circumstances wherein such abetment is alleged need to be specifically reviewed on a case-to-case basis before arriving on a future course of action. However, by way of abundant caution, organizations must adhere to fair employment practices, have transparent decision-making procedures, maintain accurate documentation, and meaningfully engage with employees prior to taking adverse employment actions. By establishing a transparent, verifiable record of sound business reasoning for hiring and separation decisions, such practices not only protect vulnerable employees but also shield employers from baseless accusations. Considering the sensitivities involved, it is also important to promptly involve in-house counsel and, wherever necessary, external legal counsel to ensure that timely and pre-emptive action can be taken to protect employees’ health and safety and to mitigate risks from an employer’s perspective.