Introduction
An individual's suicide casts long shadows of grief and confusion across families, friendships and the entire society. The ripple effects of suicide do not end with the immediate loss of the individual but extends far beyond it. It creates intricate webs of emotional trauma that can disrupt familial bonds, friendship networks, workspace relations and social connections. Every year, more than one hundred thousand people commit suicide in India1. Several factors can drive an individual to take drastic steps, including financial loss, mental health issues, family conflicts, and workplace conflicts. Recent news reports have highlighted increasing concerns about workplace-related mental health challenges and tragic incidents of employee suicides in India and globally. There has been an increase in the percentage distribution of 'suicide victims by profession' from 7.4 % in 2014 to 9.6 % in 20222. This implies that there is a significant proportion of employees in India grappling with deep-rooted issues related to professional stress, intense psychological pressures and potential toxic workplace environments. As a result, employers and workplaces face greater scrutiny (both from legal authorities and the general public) when such tragic incidents occur.
Employer's Liability
In October 2024, the Supreme Court of India ("SC") in Nipun Aneja and Ors v State of Uttar Pradesh3 laid down the guidelines to determine an employer's criminal liability for 'Abetment to Suicide' under Section 306 r/w Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC"), now Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita ("BNS"). In this case, an FIR was filed against the executives of the employer alleging that the executives forced the deceased employee to opt for a voluntary retirement scheme and owing to the distress and humiliation caused by the same, the employee committed suicide. The senior executives filed an application before the Allahabad High Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings. The High Court concluded that there was a direct connection between the discussions held during the meeting and the suicide committed by the deceased employee shortly afterwards. The senior executives filed an appeal before the SC against the High Court's decision. The SC has delineated the essential legal ingredients to establish abetment to suicide within the context of employment, discussed below:
- The employer should have made a direct instigation/provocation.
- Sufficient proof is required to showcase that there was direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide.
- The offending action by the employer should be proximate to the time of occurrence of the suicide.
- The employee was left with no option but to commit suicide.
The SC observed that the incitement of committing suicide can be divided into two broad categories. First, where the deceased has sentimental ties or physical relations with the accused and the second category, where the deceased has relations with the accused in his or her official capacity. In normal circumstances, relationships by sentimental tie cannot be equated with the official relationship. While the former relationship carries inherent, often unspoken emotional responsibilities, the employer-employee official relationships are precisely defined by established rules, policies, and regulations of the organisation. The present case falls into the second category. The test that the Court should adopt in this type of case is to make an endeavour to ascertain on the basis of the materials on record whether there is anything to indicate even prima facie that the accused intended the consequences of the act, i.e., suicide.
Interestingly, this issue has been addressed earlier by Indian Courts. One of the most notable cases is Praveen Pradhan v. State of Uttaranchal4. In this case, the employee tragically ended his life after enduring persistent harassment and humiliation at his workplace. The deceased's suicide note stated that (i) he was subjected to extreme working conditions, which went up to 16–17-hours shifts, (ii) the employer consistently undermined his self-respect, and (iii) the employer made repeated attempts to force the deceased employee to resign. Upon careful examination of the evidence, the High Court of Uttarakhand found the appellant employer guilty of abetment to suicide, a decision that prompted the employer to file an appeal challenging the Court's initial order.
The SC, after hearing the case, held that there was evidence of direct instigation made by the employer. The distinctive factor in this case is that the harassment was coupled with utterance of the words "had there been any other person in his place, he would have certainly committed suicide" which led the SC to believe that there is abetment to suicide.
Where an employer is criminally held liable under Section 306 of IPC5, he/she will be imprisoned for a term up to 10 years along with fine. This serves as a reminder to address the underlying issues may lead an employee to contemplate suicide.
What can employers do to mitigate liability
A workplace tragedy, such as a suicide, can devastate employees' morale, and fundamentally disrupt the psychological safety of the workplace ecosystem. Considering this, it is crucial for employers in India to develop a support system and preventive strategies to safeguard employees' well-being, while also ring-fencing their own liability. Employers can consider implementing prevention strategies such as:
Mental health support infrastructure
Employers can foster a psychologically safe workplace by implementing comprehensive Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs) that extend beyond traditional wellness initiatives. These programs can integrate professional counselling services, dedicated mental health helplines and a holistic support mechanism designed to provide employees with accessible, confidential and non-judgemental psychological resources.
Establish transparent Grievance Redressal Mechanisms
Employees often fear retaliation, and this fear can prevent them from voicing concerns about their seniors, resulting in a toxic workplace environment. Creating an accessible and impartial system that empowers employees to voice their concerns without fear of retaliation, would go a long way. The policies around grievance redressal mechanisms should ideally be published on the organisation's intranet and if possible, the employees should be regularly informed about the transparency of such process.
Well-being leave policy
Long working hours and excessive work demands creates workplace stress, contributing to emotional exhaustion and mental health issues among employees. In order to increase morale of the employee, employers can consider introducing 'Well-being Leave'. This policy allows employees to take designated time off to relax, recharge, and focus on their personal health, free from work pressures. Companies like Google and Nike have successfully implemented this policy, recognising the importance of mental and emotional recovery in boosting productivity and employee satisfaction.
Quarterly feedback
Implementing quarterly feedback surveys is an effective strategy for employers to support the well-being of their employees. By including questions related to mental health, work-life balance, job satisfaction and interpersonal relationships, employers can identify early signs of distress or burnout, allowing for timely intervention.
All documents and records relating to employee interactions, performance review and feedback, employee's mental health and comprehensive communication need to be maintained and preserved meticulously by employers, to reduce liability should such a circumstance arise.
Other Radical measures:
These measures, though more unconventional, can complement existing practices and play a vital role in fostering long-term employee well-being and productivity.
No-questions-asked leave policy
This is a radical approach to the employee wellness, which provides them to take time-off without providing an explanation. Startups like Noise and Wakefit have adopted this policy which can help their employees to seek assistance or rest without worrying about the consequences on their careers. It becomes a critical suicide prevention strategy, offering employees a confidential, judgement-free mechanism to step back when experiencing overwhelming situations causing distress.
Right to disconnect
"Right to Disconnect" is an emerging legal concept addressing the growing concern of work-life balance and employee mental health, especially in the digital age where professional boundaries have become increasingly blurred. This refers to a worker's right to be able to disengage from work and refrain from engaging in work-related electronic communications, such as emails or other messages, during non-work hours.
Countries like France, Australia and Belgium have been the few of the nations to implement this concept by way of judicial measures. Australia's "Right to Disconnect" law imposes a whopping penalty of up to AUD 94,000 for companies, for non-compliance.
The tragic employee suicide at one of the big 4 companies in September 2024, allegedly due to work pressure, has highlighted the urgent need of disconnecting from work outside official hours. While a legislation of this nature is not warranted in India at present, particularly given the increased focus on other pressing issues, organisation should consider adopting voluntary digital disconnection policies to create a healthier and preferable workplace environment.
Conclusion
In the light of increasing number of workplace-related suicides in India, a radical change in organisational culture is required and this change is already underway, with many employers now offering mental health days. Employers must go beyond merely adhering to the law in order to establish supportive environments, that places employees' mental health first. Once the employers understand that compassion and proactive intervention are not only a moral requirement, but also an essential tactic for preserving a safe, healthy, productive and effective workplace, organisations will thrive as never seen before.
Footnotes
1 National Crime Records Bureau-Accidental deaths and Suicides in India
2 Ibid
3 Nipun Aneja and Ors vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 654 of 2017.
4 Praveen Pradhan v. State of Uttaranchal, 2012 AIR SCW 5372.
5 Section 108 of BNS
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.
