Depression is a mental illness:

Suicide

1. View of Supreme Court and High Courts on law of suicide (section 309)
   Abetment to commit suicide is a punishable offence under section 306 of Indian Penal Code (IPC). In addition to this, attempt to commit suicide was also a punishable offence under section 309 of IPC before 2014.
   
   Section 309 of IPC reads as under:
   309. Attempt to commit suicide - Whoever attempts to commit suicide and does any act towards the commission of such offence, shall he punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine, or with both.
   
   Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.Basant of Kerela High Court had observed Whether Section 309 I.P.C. can at all be an offence has been the subject matter of discussion by the Constitutional Courts on many occasions. In theology, in morality and in law, suicide has always been reckoned as impermissible whatever be the justification for such perception. The law does not, of course, make commission of suicide punishable. Commission of suicide is not made punishable not because the commission of suicide is not culpable, but because the person culpably responsible would have departed from this world before he can face any indictment.[12]
   
   The Law Commission in its Forty Second Report had examined whether attempt to commit suicide be retained as a penal offence. The Commission referred to the Dharma Sastras which legitimized the practice of taking one's life in certain situations and also referred to the provisions of Suicide Act, 1961 in Britain which decriminalized the offence of attempt to commit suicide. After examining these views, the Commission recommended that section 309 is harsh and unjustifiable and it should be repealed.[13]
   
   Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajinder Sachar commented on the punishment for attempt to suicide as:
   It is ironic that Section 309 Indian Penal Code still continues to be on our Penal Code. The result is that a young boy driven to such frustration so as to seek one's own life would have escaped human punishment if he had succeeded but is to be bounded by the police, because attempt has failed.
   
   Strange paradox that in the age of votaries of Euthanasia, suicide should be criminally punishable. Instead of the society hanging its head in shame that there should be such social strains that a young man (the hope of tomorrow, should be driven to suicide compounds its inadequacy by treating the boy as a criminal.
   
   Instead of sending the young boy to psychiatric clinic it gleefully sends him to mingle with criminals, as if trying its best to see that in future he does fall foul of the punitive sections of the Penal Code. The continuance of Section 309 Indian Penal Code is an anachronism unworthy of a humane society like ours. Medical clinics for such social misfits certainly but police and prison never. The very idea is revolting.[14]
   
   With regards to the constitutional validity of section 309 of IPC the Bombay High Court tested whether section 309 passed the test of Articles 14,19 and 21 of constitution. With respect to Article 19 and 21 the Court held:
   The fundamental rights enumerated in Art. 19 are only extensions of the right to life and have no meaning without it. Essentially therefore we have to examine the precise contents of Art. 21….There is nothing unnatural about the desire to die and hence with the right to die. Whatever the circumstances which induce a person to end or terminate his or her life, the act of termination of life is the act of that individual. It is no less his than his act of living.[15]
   
   With respect to Article 14 the Court held:
   What may be considered suicide in one community may not be considered so in another community and the different acts, though suicidal, may be described differently in different circumstances and at different times in the same community as we have seen earlier. While some suicides are eulogised, others are condemned. That is why perhaps wisely no attempts has been made by the legislature to define either.
   
   But the difficulty in providing a plausible definition cannot certainly be pressed in favour of the validity of the provision particularly when it is penal. The want of plausible definition and even of guidelines to distinguish the felonious from the non-felonious act itself therefore makes the provisions of S. 309 arbitrary and violative of Art. 14. As is rightly said arbitrariness and equality are enemies of each other.[16] The Bombay High Court in this case held Section 309 of IPC to be unconstitutional.
   
   In the case of Chenna Jagadeeswar v. State of Andhra Pradesh (supra) the Andhra High Court upheld the validity of Section 309 of IPC and observed that From these Articles, it is seen that the right to life is not specifically mentioned.
   
   But, in a broader sense, unless a man is assured of physical existence there can be no other fundamental right and since the State exists for the common good of the citizens, no Constitution can ignore the right of the citizens to life though it may not be explicitly explained. In these circumstances, it is rather difficult to hold that the right to life impliedly guaranteed by the Constitution includes the right to die.[17]
   
   The Supreme Court tested the constitutional validity of section 309 in the case of P.Rathinam vs. Union of India and held that:
   On the basis of what has been held and noted above, we state that section 309 of the Penal Code deserves to be effaced from the statute book to humanize our penal laws. It is a cruel and irrational provision, and it may result in punishing a person again (doubly) who has suffered agony and would be undergoing ignominy because of his failure to commit suicide. Then an act of suicide cannot be said to be against religion, 26 morality or public policy and an act of attempted suicide has no baneful effect on society.
   
   Further, suicide or attempt to commit it causes no harm to others, because of which State's interference with the personal liberty of the persons concerned is not called for.
   
   We, therefore, hold that section 309 violates Article 21, and so, it is void. May it be said that the view taken by us would advance not only the cause of humanization, which is a need of the day, but of globalization also, as by effacing section 309, we would be attuning this part of criminal law to the global wavelength.[18]
   
   However, the decision of the Supreme Court in P.Rathinam case was overruled by a larger bench in the case of Smt. Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab where the Court held To give meaning and content to the word life in Article 21, it has been construed as life with human dignity. Any aspect of life which makes it dignified may be read into it but not that which extinguishes it and is, therefore, inconsistent with the continued existence of life resulting in effacing the right itself.
   
   The ‘right to die, if any, is inherently inconsistent with the ‘right to life' as is ‘death with life.[19] The Court upheld the constitutional validity of section 309 of IPC and observed that right to life does not include right to die.
    
2. 1. 210th Report of Law Commission of India:
      210th report of Law Commission of India is titled Humanization and Decriminalization of Attempt to Suicide. The report studies the statistics relating to suicidal deaths in India, the interpretation of section 306 and 309 of IPC as well as the problems that are faced due to criminalization of attempt to suicide.
      
      The report highlights the following problems caused due to criminalization of attempt to suicide:
      
      1. Emergency treatment for those who have attempted suicide is not readily accessible as they are referred by local hospitals and doctors to tertiary centres as it is termed as Medico Legal case. The time lost in the golden hour will save many lives.
      2. Those who attempt suicide are already distressed and in psychological pain and for them to face the ignominy of police interrogation causes increased distress, shame, guilt and further suicide attempt.
      3. At the time of family turmoil dealing with police procedure adds to the woes of the family.
      4. It also leads to a gross under-reporting of attempted suicide and the magnitude of the problem is not unknown. Unless one is aware of the nature of extent of the problem effective intervention is not possible.
      5.  As many attempted suicides are categorized in the guise of accidental poisoning etc. emotional and mental health support is not available to those who have attempted as they are unable to access the services.[20]
   
   The Law Commission report also mentioned that the President of the International Association for Suicide Prevention, France, has, vide his letter of 9 October 2007 addressed to Hon'ble Minister of Law and Justice, Government of India, strongly supported withdrawal of the status of attempted suicide as a punishable offence.
   
   The report states:
   He has stated that most countries in the world who have had laws criminalizing attempted suicide have withdrawn those laws in the second half of the twentieth century, justifying the withdrawal by the belief that attempting suicide is not a crime that should be punished but rather a desperate reaction to a difficult life situation by people who usually suffer from a mental disorder. These changes have indicated awareness that suicidal individuals need to be helped and imprisonment only makes their problem worse.
   
   One of the fears expressed when all countries in Europe and North America decriminalized attempted suicide was that suicide rates may increase. There are no indications whatsoever that there was an increase in suicides following decriminalization, and in many instances it is thought that suicide decreased since more suicidal individuals received the help they need… The International Association for Suicide Prevention wishes India to join the countries of the world, who have decriminalized attempted suicide in order to clearly communicate to suicidal individuals that they should seek help, rather than avoid admitting to their problems for fear of imprisonment[21]
   
   The Commission recommended repeal of Section 309 of IPC as follows:
   5.3 Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code provides double punishment for a person who has already got fed up with his own life and desires to end it. Section 309 is also a stumbling block in prevention of suicides and improving the access of medical care to those who have attempted suicide. It is unreasonable to inflict punishment upon a person who on account of family discord, destitution, loss of a dear relation or other cause of a like nature overcomes the instinct of self-preservation and decides to take his own life. In such a case, the unfortunate person deserves sympathy, counselling and appropriate treatment, and certainly not the prison.
   
   5.4 Section 309 needs to be effaced from the statute book because the provision is inhuman, irrespective of whether it is constitutional or unconstitutional. The repeal of the anachronistic law contained in section 309 of the Indian Penal Code would save many lives and relieve the distressed of his suffering.
   
   5.5 The Commission is of the view that while assisting or encouraging another person to (attempt to) commit suicide must not go unpunished, the offence of attempt to commit suicide under section 309 needs to be omitted from the Indian Penal Code.[22] 
3. De-criminalization of attempt to suicide:
   On the basis of the recommendation of Law Commission in its 210th report, in December 2014 the Rajya Sabha after claiming support of 18 states and 4 Union Territories decided to repeal Section 309 from the Indian Penal Code.
   
   While attempt to commit suicide is decriminalized, abetment to commit suicide still remains punishable under section 306 of IPC.
    
4. Law relating to mental illness:
   Mental Healthcare Act 2017 was enacted to provide for mental healthcare and services for persons with mental illness and to protect, promote and fulfil the rights of such persons during delivery of mental healthcare and services and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The Act defines mental illness. The Act provides that a patient of mental illness may nominate a representative of his choice who shall consider the current and past wishes, the life history, values, cultural background and the best interests of the person with mental illness; provide support to the person with mental illness in making treatment decisions; be involved in discharge planning and perform such other duties as are specified under the Act.[23]
   
   The Act also provides various rights of persons with mental illness such as:
   
   1. Right to access mental healthcare[24]
   2. Right to community living[25]
   3. Right to protection from cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment[26]
   4. Right to equality and non- discrimination[27]
   5. Right to information[28]
   6. Right to confidentiality[29]
   7. Restriction on release of information in respect of mental illness[30]
   8. Right to access medical records[31]
   9. Right to personal contacts and communication[32]
   10. Right to legal aid[33]
   11. Right to make complaints about deficiencies in provision of services[34]
       The Act also casts a duty upon the Government to plan, design and implement programmes for the promotion of mental health and prevention of mental illness in the country and, in particular, plan, design and implement public health programmes to reduce suicides and attempted suicides in the country.[35] The Act also imposes a duty on the Government to create awareness about mental health and illness and reduce stigma associated with mental illness.[36]
       
       The Act also provides for the establishment of an authority to deal with applications and complaints by persons with mental illness.
        
5. Presumption in case of attempt to commit suicide:
   Section 115 of the Act provides a presumption in case of attempt to commit suicide as follows:
   
   1. Notwithstanding anything contained in section 309 of the Indian Penal Code any person who attempts to commit suicide shall be presumed, unless proved otherwise, to have severe stress and shall not be tried and punished under the said Code.
       
   2. The appropriate Government shall have a duty to provide care, treatment and rehabilitation to a person, having severe stress and who attempted to commit suicide, to reduce the risk of recurrence of attempt to commit suicide.[37]
      
      It is the duty of the Government to provide adequate facilities and treatment to the person who attempts to commit suicide in order to rehabilitate him.