In India, employers have a legal and moral responsibility to provide a safe and harassment-free workplace for the employees. Under various labour laws, including the Factories Act, 1948 and the Prevention of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013, employers are mandated to protect employees from harassment and ensure a healthy working environment. Toxic workplace culture, where bullying or harassment is normalized or goes unchecked, can create an environment where employees feel powerless to challenge in appropriate behavior. Power dynamics, such as harassment by senior management or influential colleagues, can make it even more difficult for victims to speak up, contributing to a sense of hopelessness and impairing mental health risks. Beyond direct harassment, severe workplace stress due to unrealistic targets, constant pressure, or an abusive work environment can lead to burnout, which can contribute to mental breakdowns or suicidal tendencies. Even in larger organizations, gaps in policy implementation, oversight, or accountability can allow harassment to go unchecked, making it difficult to prevent or address issues before they escalate. Harassment can lead to significant mental health issues among employees, including anxiety, depression, and suicidal thoughts. Mental health issues, including those caused by workplace harassment, are often increasing. Failing to ensure the harassment or the undue stress can lead to tragic consequences, including the death of an employee.
Owing to a significant rise in workplace-related stress and suicides in India, particularly in high-pressure sectors like IT and BPO, employers, especially company management, are being increasingly blamed by employees or their families for abetting the employee's decision to take drastic steps and face legal consequences, not only from criminal charges but also from civil lawsuits filed by the families of deceased employees, often citing negligence or failure to provide a safe working environment.
In cases where employees commit suicide allegedly due to work-related reasons, the impact can be particularly severe for the management or employer. Often, the deceased's family retaliates by filing an First Information Report (FIR) under Section 306 (abetment of suicide) read with Section 34 (acts done by several persons with common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) [now, Section 106 read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)].
Recent Judgment of Supreme Court of India
The recent judgment of Nipun Aneja & Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh revolves around the prosecution of three senior officers from Hindustan Lever Limited (HLL) in connection with the suicide of Rajeev Jain, an employee of the company working with the company for the past twenty-three years. The crux of the case lies in the deceased's alleged harassment by the company's officers, primarily regarding the forced imposition of a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) and demotion, which allegedly led to his suicide.
As per the facts of the case, Rajeev Jain committed suicide on November 3, 2006, in his hotel room in Lucknow after attending a company meeting. His brother, Rajnish Jain, lodged a First Information Report (FIR) the following day, accusing senior officers of HLL, including Nipun Aneja, of mentally harassing his brother by pressuring him to accept the company's VRS scheme. According to the complainant, the company had initiated this VRS scheme for about 50-60 employees, but many, including Rajeev Jain, were unwilling to accept it as they felt that after putting in 23 years of service as salesmen, they could not have been asked to undertake the work of merchandising. This was alleged to be done by way of punishment for refusing to voluntarily retire.
The FIR detailed that Rajeev Jain had been under pressure for nearly a year due to the VRS and was being harassed by company officers. On November 3, 2006 the deceased attended a meeting where he was reportedly humiliated, including being issued a transfer letter to a lower position (merchandising), which further aggravated his mental distress and pushed him to take the drastic step of ending his life.
The Appellants sought the quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against them, arguing that there was no direct evidence linking them to the alleged abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code(IPC). The High Court of Allahabad, however, dismissed their petition, which prompted them to approach the Supreme Court.
Before the Supreme Court, the Appellants contended that the deceased's suicide was not a result of their actions but rather his own personal decision. They pointed out that the Company had the right to introduce the VRS scheme, which was optional, and that no undue pressure was exerted on the employees. It was highlighted that the deceased had not opted for VRS, and his suicide could not be directly linked to the appellants' actions.
The primary legal issue in this case before the Supreme Court was whether the Appellants' actions amounted to "abetment" under Section 306 of the IPC, which defines abetment as instigating or aiding a person to commit suicide. To prove abetment, it must be shown that the accused had a clear intent to provoke the deceased to take his own life.
The Court observed that for abetment under Section 306 to be established, there must be clear evidence of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid leading to the suicide. If the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four-corners of Section 306 IPC. Further, if the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide.
The Court categorized the causes of psychological disturbance leading to suicide into two types based on the nature of relationships as follows:
- Sentimental or Physical Relationships: This category involves personal ties, such as between spouses, family members, or other close relations. In such cases, even a normal quarrel or heated exchange can create immediate psychological distress, leading to depression or a sense of loss in life. If a person cannot manage these heightened emotions and expectations, they may feel compelled to commit suicide. Examples include relationships like husband and wife, mother and son, brother and sister, sister and sister and other relations of such type, where sentimental tie is by blood or due to physical relations.
- Workplace Relationships: This category involves professional or workplace ties, where on account of official relations, the expectations would be to discharge the obligations as provided for such duty in law and to receive the considerations as provided in law. Such expectations are based on the discharge of duties according to laws, rules, or policies.
Unlike sentimental ties, official relationships are prescribed by law, rules, policies and regulations. Emotional pressure is less in such cases, as they are bound by professional rules rather than personal emotions.
In summary, personal relationships carry higher emotional expectations and risks, whereas official relationships are governed by formal, structured expectations.
The Supreme Court criticized the High Court's approach in assessing the case, stating it should have considered whether the Appellants' actions on November 3, 2006, amounted to unbearable harassment that led the deceased to view suicide as his only escape. The Court suggested evaluating if the Appellants exploited the deceased's emotional vulnerability, threatened him with severe consequences, or made false allegations that damaged his reputation, resulting in public humiliation. These factors are vital in determining abetment under the law, and the High Court's oversight of these elements was deemed incorrect.
The Supreme Court quashed the proceedings against the Appellants, holding that there was insufficient evidence to prove that they had instigated Rajeev Jain's suicide. The mere fact that Rajeev Jain was unhappy with the company's policies and felt humiliated was not sufficient to hold the appellants criminally liable for his suicide. There was no evidence of any direct threats or coercive measures taken by the Appellants that would have left Rajeev Jain with no option but to commit suicide. In this case, the Appellants' actions, even if perceived as humiliating or harsh, did not meet the legal threshold for abetment.
The Supreme Court emphasized that the allegations of harassment and humiliation, while serious, were part of a broader employment issue, not a criminal act of abetment. The Court criticized the tendency of prosecuting individuals in such cases without sufficient grounds, stating that it amounted to an abuse of the legal process.
Anhad Law's Perspective
The Supreme Court's judgment in this case underscores the high threshold required to establish abetment of suicide under Indian law as merely creating an unpleasant or stressful working environment, without more, does not constitute abetment. If the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide.
The Court reiterated that criminal liability for abetment can only be established when there is clear evidence of direct incitement, instigation, or coercion leading to the victim's decision to end their life. In this case, the Court found no such evidence against the Appellants and quashed the criminal proceedings, bringing the matter to a close.
The Judgement has emphasized that if an employee experiences harassment at workplace that contributes to a most drastic decision, the responsible parties (including office bearers) may be held legally accountable for abetting the action taken by an employee. Legal proceedings can be costly, damaging to reputations, and may lead to significant financial penalties.
Therefore, employers must prioritize the prevention of workplace harassment to protect their employees and themselves from the potential legal consequences, including abetment of undesired claims. Workplace harassment is a serious issue that can have profound consequences for employees, employers, and the overall work environment. Creating a respectful and supportive work environment not only enhances employee well-being but also contributes to the overall success and reputation of the organization. By investing in training, clear policies, and a culture of accountability, employers can significantly reduce the risk of harassment and its detrimental effects on individuals and the workplace as a whole.
Originally published by Lexology .
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.