Navigating Employer’s Duty of Care: Mental Health and Suicide Prevention

Understanding an employer’s duty of care in mental health and suicide prevention. 

INTRODUCTION 

Over the years, the incidence of workplace stress and anxiety has seen a significant increase in India. The situation has not only underscored the urgent need for organisations to prioritise employee wellbeing but has also resulted in a growing number of employers facing allegations and criminal proceedings in regard to the abetment of suicide. In the competitive corporate environment, employees often face significant stress, long working hours and increasing pressure to perform, all of which contribute to deteriorating mental health. The rising number of workplace suicides in India reflects a worrying trend, as individuals grapple with job insecurity, bullying, lack of support and burnout.¹ 

GLOBAL PRACTICE 

Although it is still uncommon, the following significant court decisions serves as an excellent illustration of how companies can now be held accountable for an employee’s suicide.  

1. In Corr v. IBC Vehicles Ltd.,² the House of Lords said that suicide was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of an employer’s breach of duty.  

Facts: A maintenance engineer suffered severe head injuries in a workplace accident, leading to PTSD and depression. Six years later, he died by suicide. His widow claimed compensation under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976, arguing the suicide was a foreseeable consequence of his injuries.  

Issue: Was the suicide reasonably foreseeable, making the employer liable, or did it break the chain of causation? 

Decision: The House of Lords held the employer liable, ruling that the depression caused by the accident was foreseeable. Since the suicide resulted from severe depression impairing the employee’s judgment. There was an unbroken chain between the employer’s breach and the suicide, and the employee’s actions did not break this link. 

2. In the case of Alcorn v. Arbo Engineering, a truck driver claimed he was first abused and then fired for carrying out responsibilities as a union shop steward.³ He argued that his superintendent shouted at him in a rude, violent, and insolent manner and used racial slurs. He said that this caused him physical and emotional distress and humiliation and that he could not work for several weeks afterwards due to shock, nausea, and insomnia. The court ruled that the plaintiff adequately demonstrated that his work environment led to severe trauma and that the field superintendent fired him without just cause or provocation. In effect, it argued that the supervisor’s words, style, and actions constituted a “sudden emotional event” sufficient to establish a valid claim for compensation. 

INDIAN JUDICIAL TESTS 

What Would Constitute Abetment of Suicide in an Employment Relationship? 

1. Recently, the Supreme Court of India, in the case of Nipun Aneja and Others v State of Uttar Pradesh,⁴ Criminal Appeal Number 654 of 2017, laid down significant factors and tests to be considered when adjudicating cases involving the abetment of an employee’s suicide under Section 306 of the IPC. The court outlined specific requirements, supported by a few illustrations, that constitute the offence of the abetment of suicide. Among these requirements is a test to ascertain whether an employer/workplace officials created a situation of unbearable harassment or torture, or where the individual was threatened with severe consequences (such as harm to their family or financial ruin), such that the individual deemed suicide as the only recourse. 

2. In the case of Madan Mohan Singh v.  State of Gujarat and Another, where there was death of an employee by suicide, courts have consistently emphasised the necessity of establishing a direct nexus between the deceased’s act of suicide and the accused’s conduct, supported by material evidence rather than imaginary or inferential evidence.⁵ 

3. To attribute culpability to an employer for abetting an employee’s suicide, the presence of mens rea, i.e., criminal intent must be established. Without this essential element, the employer’s actions cannot amount to incitement or abetment under Section 306 of the IPC. The Delhi High Court in the case of Dr G K Arora v. State and Others, Criminal Miscellaneous Case 5431 of 2014 and 5817 of 2024, observed that individuals in positions of authority, whether in the public or private sector, are often required to make decisions that may cause hardship to employees. However, in the absence of mens rea, such actions cannot be considered as incitement or abetment under Section 306 of the IPC. 

4. In another case of Praveen Pradhan v. State of Uttaranchal and Anr.,⁶ the appellant was accused of abetting the suicide of an employee who had allegedly been subjected to continuous harassment and humiliation at the workplace. The deceased left a suicide note that explicitly named the appellant and others, attributing the cause of the suicide to their mistreatment. The Supreme Court examined whether the appellant’s conduct constituted ‘instigation’ under Section 107 of the IPC, thereby making him liable for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC. The Court emphasized that abetment by instigation depends on the intention behind the actions rather than the actions themselves. The Court clarified that mere words spoken in anger or omissions without intent cannot be considered instigation. 

5. In Prabhat Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P.,⁷  a government official was accused of abetting the suicide of a subordinate employee. The deceased left a suicide note alleging harassment at work. The police initially filed a closure report, but later, a case was reopened under Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide) and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. The Supreme Court quashed proceedings against the appellant, ruling that the deceased’s suicide note did not establish direct abetment. The court held that frustration due to work pressure does not meet the legal criteria for abetment under Section 107 IPC. The prosecution’s case was based solely on the suicide note, and the investigating agency had already recommended a closure report. 

CONCLUSION 

The cases make it clear that employers’ involvement in workplace disputes or abuse is being closely examined, and the case’s facts and circumstances are evaluated to provide concrete proof of intent and actions that either caused or contributed to the employee’s decision to end their life. An employer may be held criminally liable for aiding and abetting suicide if their actions put their workers in a position where they feel helpless, humiliated, or have no choice but to take their own lives. 

Authored by Tanvi Ojha, Legal Intern