(a) Summarize the law relating to 'attempt to suicide' in India. How far the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 added new dimensions to…

(a) Attempt to suicide and the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017

Before 2017: s.309 IPC punished an attempt to suicide with simple imprisonment up to one year, fine or both. Abetment was punished under ss.305-306 (now BNS ss.107-108).

• Maruti Shripati Dubal (Bombay HC 1987) struck s.309 down, while Chenna Jagadeeswar (AP HC 1988) upheld it.
• ***P. Rathinam v Union of India* (1994)** read a "right not to live" into Art 21.
• ***Gian Kaur v State of Punjab* (1996, Constitution Bench)** overruled it: the right to life does not include a right to die, though it includes dignity in the process of death. Sections 306 and 309 were upheld.
• The Law Commission (42nd Report 1971, 210th Report 2008) and Aruna Shanbaug (2011) urged repeal.

New dimensions under the MHCA, 2017:

1. Presumption of severe stress (s.115(1)): notwithstanding s.309, a person who attempts suicide is presumed, unless proved otherwise, to have severe stress and shall not be tried or punished. The act becomes a sign of distress rather than a crime.
2. Duty of care (s.115(2)): the Government must provide care, treatment and rehabilitation to reduce the risk of recurrence, turning the State from punisher into caregiver.
3. Prevention (s.29): public-health programmes to reduce suicide, now carried forward by the National Suicide Prevention Strategy (2022).
4. Rights framework: access to care (s.18), protection from cruel treatment (s.20), confidentiality (s.23), advance directives (s.5) and nominated representatives (s.14).
5. Policing: an attempt is treated as a medical emergency, and magistrates should not take cognisance where s.115 bars it.

Common Cause v Union of India (2018) recognised passive euthanasia and living wills under Art 21, but not a right to suicide.

Position under the BNS: there is no general offence of attempt to suicide. BNS s.226 punishes only an attempt made to compel or restrain a public servant, with up to one year, fine or community service. Whether the s.115 presumption extends to s.226 is still open. Abetment remains a serious offence (BNS s.108). With NCRB recording over 1.7 lakh suicides in 2022, implementing s.115(2) through helplines, district programmes and trained police matters as much as decriminalisation.

(b) Protection of online consumers

Consumer Protection Act, 2019:

• Coverage: "consumer" includes online buyers (s.2(7)), and the Act defines e-commerce (s.2(16)) and electronic service providers (s.2(17)).
• Unfair trade practices (s.2(47)) include refusing refunds for defective goods within 30 days and disclosing personal information given in confidence. Unfair contracts are covered by s.2(46).
• CCPA (ss.10-27): it can investigate, order recalls and refunds (s.20), and penalise manufacturers and endorsers of misleading advertisements up to Rs 10 lakh, or Rs 50 lakh for repeat offences (s.21).
• Product liability (ss.82-87) binds manufacturers, service providers and product sellers.
• Redressal: complaints may be filed where the complainant lives or works (s.34) and electronically through e-Daakhil (s.35), with mediation available. Section 94 is the basis for the Rules.

E-Commerce Rules, 2020:

• They apply to marketplace and inventory models and to foreign entities systematically targeting Indian consumers (Rule 2).
• All entities (Rule 4): appoint a nodal officer resident in India, display details and a Grievance Officer who acknowledges complaints within 48 hours and resolves them within one month, do not manipulate prices or discriminate, take consent by explicit action rather than pre-ticked boxes, and impose no one-sided cancellation charges.
• Marketplaces (Rules 5-6): seller undertakings on accuracy, display of seller details, return and refund terms and country of origin, complaint ticket numbers and disclosed ranking parameters. Sellers may not post fake reviews or refuse returns of defective goods.
• Inventory entities (Rule 7) bear these duties directly, and breaches attract penalties under the Act (Rule 8).

Supplementing these are the Misleading Advertisement Guidelines (2022), the Dark Patterns Guidelines (2023, 13 listed patterns), IS 19000:2022 on online reviews and the DPDP Act, 2023. Gaps remain in enforcement against foreign platforms, CCPA capacity and Commission backlogs.

(c) Nature of tortious liability

The statement is Winfield’s definition. The duty is fixed by law, owed to persons generally and redressed by unliquidated damages. This separates tort from contract (duty fixed by the parties, liquidated damages possible under s.74 of the Contract Act), breach of trust, quasi-contract (a liquidated sum) and crime (a wrong against society).

• Duty fixed by law: duties not to trespass, defame or act negligently exist without agreement. Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) imposed a duty without privity through the neighbour principle. "Primarily" allows for duties arising from relationships and concurrent liability (Henderson v Merrett 1995, Jacob Mathew 2005). A legal right must be infringed: injuria sine damno is actionable (Ashby v White 1703), but damnum sine injuria is not (Gloucester Grammar School 1410, Bradford Corporation v Pickles 1895).
• Persons generally: duties are owed broadly, though negligence limits them to foreseeable persons (Caparo v Dickman 1990), and some duties run to defined classes such as visitors.
• Unliquidated damages: assessed by the court after the wrong, whether compensatory, nominal, aggravated or exemplary. Injunctions, specific restitution and self-help are also available.

Critics call the definition circular because it defines tort by its remedy. Salmond preferred a list of nominate torts (the pigeon-hole theory) against the general principle of Winfield. Indian law has moved beyond private damages through absolute liability (M.C. Mehta 1987), constitutional tort (Rudul Sah 1983, Nilabati Behera 1993) and no-fault statutes. The statement is accurate as a working definition but needs these qualifications.