Delhi High Court Limits Scope of Employer Liability in Employee Suicide Cases, Emphasizes Need for Criminal Intent

The Delhi High Court recently issued a significant judgment clarifying the limitations of employer liability in suicide cases involving employees who face professional hardships. Justice Amit Sharma quashed a trial court summons against Dr. G.K. Arora, former principal of B.R. Ambedkar College, and Ravinder Singh, a senior assistant, in a case involving the 2013 suicide of a former employee, Ms. Pavitra Bhardwaj. 

​​​​​

Ms. Pavitra Bhardwaj, a former laboratory attendant at B.R. Ambedkar College, had a complex employment history with the college, including numerous complaints and allegations against her superiors dating back to 2009. She claimed that Dr. Arora and Mr. Singh subjected her to physical and mental harassment and cited work-related grievances, such as unfair termination and unaddressed complaints of mistreatment, which culminated in her self-immolation outside the Delhi Secretariat in 2013. In her dying declarations, she accused the petitioners and other authorities, including Delhi University’s Vice-Chancellor and the then-Chief Minister, of failing to deliver justice.

The lower court initially summoned the petitioners based on her suicide note and dying declarations, citing sufficient prima facie evidence of their involvement in harassment. However, the High Court scrutinized the evidence and found no “proximate and live-link” between Bhardwaj’s suicide and any direct actions by Arora or Singh close to her death.

Justice Amit Sharma emphasised that an employer’s harsh or difficult decisions, if taken in the ordinary course of duty and without malice, do not inherently constitute “instigation” or “abetment” under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court observed that for abetment of suicide, a clear intention to drive the victim to suicide must be evident. As explained by the Court, "person[s] holding a certain post ... in the course of duties have to take certain decisions which at time can be harsh, causing hardship to an employee. The same cannot, in the absence of the requisite mens rea, be termed as an action which would amount to incitement/abetment in terms of Section 306 of the IPC."

The Court cited Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh CRL.M.C. 5431/2014, emphasizing that mere harsh behavior or professional disputes do not satisfy the requirement for "instigation" as required under Section 306. To qualify as abetment, the Court reasoned, actions by the accused must have a direct and compelling influence on the victim’s decision to commit suicide. Additionally, the Court noted the lack of communication or action by the petitioners that was proximate to Bhardwaj’s suicide, finding that her termination occurred over a year prior without further contact.

The investigation, including reports from multiple committees such as the National Commission for Women, found Bhardwaj’s complaints unsubstantiated. The Court further held that general grievances against institutional decisions cannot alone meet the stringent standards required for criminal liability under Section 306. The Court held that the petitioners could not be held criminally liable under the circumstances and quashed the summons issued against them, thereby allowing the petitions in their favor.

Case Details- Dr. G.K. Arora vs. State & Anr.

Advocates for Petitioner - Ms. Richa Kapoor, Mr. Kunal Anand, Mr. Jai Batra, Ms. Saloni Mahajan, Mr. Sandesh Kumar, Ms. Sakshi and Ms. Atika Singh, Advocates.

Advocates for Respondents- APP Amit Ahlawat, SI Ajay Tomar, PS IP Estate.M s. Stuti Gupta