The tragic demise of 26- year old Anna Sebastian Perayil, an employee of Ernst & Young ( EY) has reignited an intense discourse on employer liability, especially in cases where workplace stress may lead to extreme outcomes such as suicide. Allegations that relentless professional pressures contributed to her untimely death have placed a spotlight on the accountability of superiors and the broader ethical responsibilities of corporations. In a Landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India lead by Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Mishra, elucidated the conditions under which superiors could be held liable for abetting suicide under section – 306 of The Indian penal code. The court delineated the distinction between personal and sentimental ties and the professional relationships, asserting that the only most extreme provocations instigations by the official seniors or superiors in the latter case might give rise to the criminal culpability. The case not only reshapes the legal framework around workplace stress but also underscores the critical need for stronger mental health support and ethical practices within the modern organisations.
The tragic death of a 26-year-old EY (Ernst & Young) employee, Anna Sebastian Perayil, has presented a complex conundrum for employers and the legal system alike. Allegations have surfaced suggesting that relentless workplace pressures contributed to her untimely death, reigniting discussions on the responsibility of employers when work-related stress leads to such extreme outcomes. As public scrutiny intensifies, the question of employer liability in cases of employee suicide is coming under the microscope, particularly in the wake of high-profile incidents like this one.
In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of India clarified the conditions under which official superiors can be held liable for the abetment of suicide by their subordinates. The bench, comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, categorized the relationships between the deceased and the accused into two broad types:
- Sentimental Ties: This category includes relationships where the deceased had emotional or personal connections with the accused. In these cases, if the superior’s actions or conduct can be shown to have instigated the suicide, they may face liability.
- Official Capacity: This second category encompasses situations where the relationship is strictly professional. The court emphasized that in such cases, liability would depend on whether the actions of the superior were extreme enough to be considered as instigation or provocation leading to the suicide.
The law governing Section 306 of the IPC ( Sec 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) is well settled. Section 306 of the IPC reads as under:-
“306.Abetment of suicide. ─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.”
the basic ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 306 of the IPC are suicidal death and abetment thereof. Abetment of a thing is defined under Section 107 of the IPC as under:-
“107. Abetment of a thing─ A person abets the doing of a thing, who─
First. ─ Instigates any person to do that thing; or
Secondly.─ 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 to
Thirdly.─ Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1.─ A person who by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.
Explanation 2.─ Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.”
Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Anr (2010) 12 SCC 190,
The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that;
“25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by the Supreme Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mensrea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.”
Netai Dutta v. State of West Bengal, reported in (2005) 2 SCC 659
an employee of a company was transferred from one place to another. However, he failed to join. Thereafter, he sent a letter of resignation expressing his grievance against stagnancy to salary and unpleasant situation. The company accepted the resignation. Thereafter, the said employee committed suicide. He left behind a suicide note, alleging therein that Netai Dutta and, one Paramesh Chatterjee engaged him in several wrong doings. The same was alleged as, torture. The brother of the deceased filed complaint, against Netai Dutta and others under Section 306 of the IPC. A learned Single Judge of the High Court of Calcutta declined to quash the complaint. In appeal, however, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while quashing the complaint, at paragraphs 5 and 6 observed as under:
“In the suicide note, except referring to the name of the appellant at two places, there is no reference of any-act or incidence where by the appellant herein is alleged to have, committed any willful act or omission or intentionally aided or instigated the deceased) Pranab Kumar Nag to committing the act of suicide. There is no case that the appellant has played any part or any role in any conspiracy, which ultimately instigated or resulted in the commission of suicide by deceased Pranab Kumar Nag.”
Nipun Aneja and Others Versus State of Uttar Pradesh 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 786
the Hon’ble Supreme Court made the following observations while quashing an FIR for the abetment of suicide:-
The ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 306 of the IPC (abetment of suicide) would stand fulfilled if the suicide is committed by the deceased due to direct and alarming encouragement/incitement by the accused leaving no option but to commit suicide.
“First, where the deceased is having sentimental ties or physical relations with the accused and the second category would be where the deceased is having relations with the accused in his or her official capacity. In the case of former category sometimes a normal quarrel or the hot exchange of words may result into immediate psychological imbalance, consequently creating a situation of depression, loss of charm in life and if the person is unable to control sentiments of expectations, it may give temptations to the person to commit suicide, e.g., when there is relation of 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. In the case of second category the tie is on account of official relations, where the expectations would be to discharge the obligations as provided for such duty in law and to receive the considerations as provided in law. In normal circumstances, relationships by sentimental tie cannot be equated with the official relationship. The reason being different nature of conduct to maintain that relationship. The former category leaves more expectations, whereas in the latter category, by and large, the expectations and obligations are prescribed by law, rules, policies and regulations.”
Additionally the Hon’ble Apex court meaningfully observed that:- “The test that the Court should adopt in this type of cases 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.”, the court sai
The court’s analysis is crucial in determining the threshold for employer liability in suicide cases. It establishes that not all workplace disputes or pressures will meet the legal criteria for abetment. The intent behind the superior’s actions and their impact on the employee’s mental state are critical factors in establishing liability. However, the ongoing discourse surrounding workplace mental health is crucial. Incidents like Anna’s highlight the need for robust mental health support and ethical practices across industries, as organizations grapple with the complex realities of their employees’ well-being.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written By – Advocate Ayantika Mondal
Partner, Prime Legal
