The Supreme Court Today (July 31) questioned whether humiliation alone can prove abetment of suicide in the Mohan Delkar case. The court has deferred the matter to August 5 after critical observations.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India shared serious doubts about whether the evidence available in the Mohan Delkar suicide case is strong enough to support the charge of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The bench hearing the case included Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran.
They were examining a petition filed by Abhinav Delkar, who is the son of Mohan Delkar, a former Member of Parliament. Abhinav has approached the apex court to challenge the decision of the Bombay High Court, which had earlier quashed the FIR filed against nine people, including Praful Patel, the Administrator of the Union Territories of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu, and Lakshadweep.
Mohan Delkar, who had served as MP seven times, had won his last election in 2019 from Dadra and Nagar Haveli as an independent candidate. On February 22, 2021, he was found dead in Hotel Sea Green South, located at Marine Drive in Mumbai.
A 14-page suicide note was recovered from the scene, in which Delkar allegedly mentioned that political pressure was the reason he decided to end his life.
According to the First Information Report (FIR) registered by the Marine Drive Police Station, Delkar was under continuous stress and harassment for almost a year. The FIR alleged that this harassment came from officials in the Union Territory’s administration, acting under the instructions of Administrator Praful Patel.
As per the FIR, offences under Section 306 (abetment of suicide), Section 506 (criminal intimidation), and Section 389 (putting person in fear of accusation of offence) of the IPC were registered.
However, the Bombay High Court later quashed the FIR after a petition was filed by the accused persons. This decision was then challenged before the Supreme Court by Delkar’s son.
Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora, who appeared for Abhinav Delkar, argued that the suicide note and several witness statements showed that Delkar was constantly insulted and humiliated.
“He says the Deputy Collector and the Administrator misbehaved with him. This is the humiliation,”
Arora told the court while pointing at the content of the suicide note.
At this point, CJI Gavai raised an important legal concern about what amounts to abetment under law.
“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 remarked, drawing attention to how complex the abetment law is.
When Arora said Delkar felt disrespected because he was invited by a Tehsildar instead of a District Magistrate, the CJI again questioned:
“So if he is not invited by the DM, but by the Tehsildar, that is sufficient for abetment?”
Arora then explained that Delkar was a victim of continuous harassment, which was even mentioned in his suicide note. She said he had written to the Privileges Committee of Parliament, the Prime Minister, the Home Minister, and the Speaker of the Lok Sabha about his troubles.
She also brought to the court’s notice a very serious statement allegedly made by the Administrator:
The Administrator had allegedly told Kaushal Patel he would “soon kill Delkar”.
CJI then asked a direct and pointed question:
“Where is the complaint against Praful Patel? This is not a complicated question. Please answer yes or no.”
The Supreme Court further observed:
“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, who was appearing for the State of Maharashtra, commented on Delkar’s mental state:
The deceased seemed to be “a man of hypersensitivity”
He also mentioned that Delkar was hurt simply because he was not addressed as “honourable.”
Arora responded to this by saying that the State had taken a different stand before the Bombay High Court, but the Chief Justice noted that it is allowed for the State to change its position in court.
Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, who represented Praful Patel, argued that no specific names were mentioned in the letter sent to the Privileges Committee of Parliament, contrary to the claims made by the petitioner.
After hearing all sides, the Supreme Court decided to defer the matter to August 5 for further consideration.
ALSO READ: Madras High Court Justice GR Swaminathan: “Vedas Will Always Protect Their Devotees”
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on CJI BR Gavai
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Abetment To Suicide
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
