In the competitive corporate environment, employees often face significant stress, long working hours and increasing pressure to perform, all of which contribute to deteriorating mental health. The rising number of workplace suicides in India1 reflects a worrying trend, as individuals grapple with job insecurity, bullying, lack of support and burnout. Mental health challenges like anxiety, depression and stress-related disorders have become commonplace, with employees often feeling isolated or overwhelmed. Statements from influential decision-makers and industry leaders encouraging 70 to 90 hours work weeks, including Sundays, to boost productivity doesn't help and adds to unreasonable work pressures. Considering that the personal toll on employees is undeniable, let's assess the legal framework governing employer liability in employee suicide cases in this article.
Employer's Liability
A series of court rulings have addressed the issue of employer's liability in unfortunate cases of employee suicide. For instance, in a recent ruling of Nipun Aneja and Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh2, the Supreme Court of India outlined the key principles for assessing an employer's liability in case of an employee's suicide. In this case, the suicide of an employee led to accusations of harassment and abetment of suicide against several company officers. The employee, who had not accepted the company's voluntary retirement scheme, allegedly faced significant pressure and humiliation during a meeting where employees were offered lower-level positions and aggrieved by such humiliation, the employee took the extreme step of ending his life. The employee's family filed an FIR, and based on statements from colleagues describing the harassment, the police charged the accused officers under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603 ("IPC") for abetment of suicide. The accused officers appealed to the Supreme Court after the High Court refused to quash the proceedings.
The Supreme Court clarified that to charge someone with abetment of suicide, there must be direct or indirect evidence of incitement to suicide. The Court differentiated between personal and professional relationships, emphasizing that workplace conflicts, without intent to drive someone to suicide, do not constitute abetment. The Court stated that charges must show the accused's intent to instigate suicide and without sufficient evidence, pursuing such charges would be an abuse of legal process.
The Court referred to several previous judgements4 and elaborated that to determine guilt in abetment of suicide, the key consideration is whether the accused instigated the act of suicide. Instigation is understood as provoking, urging, or encouraging someone to commit the act. If the victim was hypersensitive and the accused's actions were not likely to drive a similarly situated person to suicide, it may not be sufficient to hold the accused liable. However, if the accused's conduct created a situation where the victim saw no alternative but to take his/her own life, this could fall within the scope of Section 306 of the IPC. The Court emphasized that if the accused played a role in damaging the victim's self-esteem, eventually leading to the suicide, this may constitute abetment. The mens rea of the accused must be assessed based on his actions and if the behaviour was merely harassment without the intent to provoke suicide, it might not be considered abetment. However, if the accused kept on annoying or harassing the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a case of abetment of suicide can be made out. Each case must be examined on its individual facts, after considering all circumstances and the psychological impact on both the accused and the victim.
In another case of Praveen Pradhan v. State of Uttaranchal and Anr5., the appellant was accused of abetting the suicide of an employee who had allegedly been subjected to continuous harassment and humiliation at the workplace. The deceased left a suicide note that explicitly named the appellant and others, attributing the cause of the suicide to their mistreatment. The Supreme Court examined whether the appellant's conduct constituted "instigation" under Section 1076 of the IPC, thereby making him liable for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC. The Court emphasized that abetment by instigation depends on the intention behind the actions rather than the actions themselves. The Court clarified that mere words spoken in anger or omissions without intent cannot be considered instigation.
The Court further noted that the circumstances surrounding the case must be carefully assessed, as there is no one-size-fits-all test for determining whether instigation directly led to suicide. In this case, the harassment was not isolated but a consistent pattern of mistreatment. The victim, a qualified engineer, endured unreasonable demands and long working hours. Additionally, the appellant's comment that "had there been any other person in his place, he would have certainly committed suicide" was a critical factor in distinguishing this case from others. Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision and dismissed the appeal, reinforcing the seriousness of workplace harassment and its potential legal consequences.
Suggestions
It is evident from the above cases that employers' role in workplace conflicts or mistreatment is being scrutinised and the facts and circumstances of the case are assessed to establish direct evidence of intent coupled with actions instigating or contributing to the employee's decision to take life. If an employer's conduct creates a situation where the employee feels trapped, humiliated or with no alternative but to end his/her life, it can lead to criminal liability for abetment to suicide.
Given the rise in cases of workplace harassment leading to employee suicides, employers may want to implement strategies to prevent or minimize the risks of burnout, harassment and emotional distress among employees and safeguard against potential legal liability, including:
- Policies: Develop and enforce strict anti-harassment policies ensuring that any form of workplace mistreatment is discouraged and promptly addressed.
- Grievance Redressal Mechanism: Setting up of a grievance redressal mechanism or a platform for the employees to raise their concerns regarding harassment and swift addressal of these complaints. In case of internal investigation in such cases, employer should ensure confidentiality, maintain records of investigations and follow the principles of natural justice, including allowing the employee (who is involved in harassment) an opportunity to respond to allegations. This process not only supports employees but also provides employers with the necessary documentation for defence should issues escalate.
- Employee Recognition: Recognizing and rewarding employees for their hard work can boost morale and motivate them to perform better. Acknowledging their achievements in a meaningful way creates a positive work environment and reduces feelings of stress or inadequacy.
- Work-Life Balance: Regardless to the industry leaders calling for 7 days work schedule (which is totally unwarranted and unrealist), employers should discourage excessively long working weeks, contributing to employee burnout. Implementing wellness initiatives such as fitness programs, yoga sessions, and nutrition counselling can help employees maintain both physical and mental health.
- Supportive Management: Considering that employees spend large part of their waking time working, fostering a culture that promotes empathy, understanding, and support for employees would be helpful. Employers can offer mental health resources like counselling services, therapy, and stress management programs to help employees cope with anxiety, depression, and other mental health challenges. For instance, a leading software Indian company provides an employee assistance program that offers confidential counselling and support for personal, professional, and emotional challenges. It also conducts stress management workshops and mental health awareness sessions for employees.
- Social Connection: Creating opportunities for employees to build social connections within the organization can improve job satisfaction and reduce feelings of isolation.
Vigilance in addressing workplace stressors, promoting mental health awareness and ensuring a safe environment for employees are key to minimise work related suicides and potential legal liability for the employers.
Footnotes
1 In terms of Accidental Deaths & Suicides report released by National Crimes Record Bureau for the year 2022, suicides by professionals/salaried persons in India is 9.6% .
2 MANU/SC/1099/2024
3 The Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 has now replaced Section 306 of the IPC.
4 Ude Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana ((2019) 17 SCC 301)
5 (2013) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 146
6 Abetment is now defined under Section 45 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, to mean "A person abets the doing of a thing, who:
a) instigates any person to do that thing; or
b) engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or
c) intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.".
Disclaimer: LexCounsel provides this e-update on a complimentary basis solely for informational purposes. It is not intended to constitute, and should not be taken as, legal advice, or a communication intended to solicit or establish any attorney-client relationship between LexCounsel and the reader(s). LexCounsel shall not have any obligations or liabilities towards any acts or omission of any reader(s) consequent to any information contained in this e-newsletter. The readers are advised to consult competent professionals in their own judgment before acting on the basis of any information provided hereby.
