Can humiliation amount to abetment of suicide? Supreme Court questions FIR in Mohan Delkar suicide

The Supreme Court on Thursday expressed serious reservations over whether the material placed on record in the Mohan Delkar suicide case could sustain charges of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

A Bench led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing a petition filed by Abhinav Delkar, son of the late parliamentarian, challenging the Bombay High Court’s decision to quash the FIR against nine persons, including Praful Patel, Administrator of the Union Territories of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu and Lakshadweep.

Delkar, a seven time MP from Dadra and Nagar Haveli, had won the 2019 Lok Sabha elections as an independent candidate. He was found dead inside a room in Hotel Sea Green South in city's Marine Drive on February 22, 2021.

In a 14- page suicide note, Delkar allegedly blamed political pressure for taking the drastic step.

Delkar was allegedly under pressure for a year due to the harassment by the administration of the Union Territory allegedly as per orders of the Administrator Praful Patel, the FIR had stated.

Subsequently, a first information report (FIR) was registered by the Marine Drive police station for offences under Section 306 (abetment of suicide), 506 (criminal intimidation), 389 (putting person in fear of accusation of offence) of the Indian Penal Code.

However, the Bombay High Court quashed the FIR on a petition by the accused persons.

This led to the appeal before the top court by Delkar's son (appellant).

Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora, appearing for the appellant, referred to the suicide note and deposition statements to submit that Delkar faced persistent humiliation.

“He says the Deputy Collector and the Administrator misbehaved with him. This is the humiliation,” Arora told the Court.

The Chief Justice questioned the legal standard for abetment.

“Can this humiliation be said to compel suicide? If a lawyer is told by a judge that the client has chosen a stupid lawyer, and the lawyer dies by suicide three days later, will the judge be liable under Section 306? In the Bombay High Court, I have quashed so many such cases,” CJI Gavai remarked.

When Arora pointed out that Delkar was insulted by being invited by a Tehsildar and not the District Magistrate, the Chief Justice asked,

“So if he is not invited by the DM, but by the Tehsildar, that is sufficient for abetment?”

Arora responded that the suicide note referred to continuous harassment, and that Delkar had written to the Privileges Committee of Parliament as well as to the Prime Minister, Home Minister and the Speaker.

She also cited a statement that the Administrator had allegedly told Kaushal Patel he would “soon kill Delkar”.

The CJI pressed further.

“Where is the complaint against Praful Patel? This is not a complicated question. Please answer yes or no.”

The Bench opined that “even if someone is told to go and die, and if the person dies within 48 hours, Section 306 is not attracted.”

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State of Maharashtra, said the deceased seemed to be “a man of hypersensitivity” and pointed out that Delkar was hurt when he was not addressed as “honourable”.

Arora responded that the State had taken a different stand before the High Court. The Chief Justice noted that the State was entitled to change its stance.

Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, appearing for Praful Patel, submitted that no names had been placed before the Privileges Committee, despite the claim.

The Court eventually deferred the hearing for August 5.

[Read Live Coverage]