Suicides in India have always led to administrative chaos.
The very soul of the deceased is often reduced to a legal squabble with FIRs being filed on a whim, very often driven by the frustration of the family due to a lack of professionalism and transparency by the authorities.
If – as has happened with Sushant Singh Rajput most recently but also Jiah Khan and Divya Bharati and others in the past – the deceased is well known, then the investigation gets escalated to the Supreme Court and Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for what should be a routine police matter. The sum of this ends up becoming rich material for TRP vultures, immense emotional and financial distress for already bereaved families and embarrassment for a nation attempting to position itself as a global leader.
Notably, it is not confirmed yet whether Rajput died by suicide.
The root cause in this instance is the Iron Age ‘Code of Criminal Procedure’ (CRPC), specifically Section 174. In rather ambiguous language, which – quite rightly – leads to various interpretations, it says the police “…in the presence of two or more respectable inhabitants of the neighbourhood, shall make an investigation, and draw up a report of the apparent cause of death…”.
Twenty-first century India does not require the deployment of forensics teams to collect evidence, or specialist forensic medical examiners to carry out an autopsy or professional detectives to investigate. Section 174 finds no use for the glamorous IPS either; state-level inspectors or sub-inspectors are tasked with being investigators for all matters while being specialists in none.
Instead, the body is handed over to a government hospital where an ‘autopsy surgeon’ will carry out the postmortem. Autopsy surgeons, in general, are neither trained nor qualified as criminal specialists, leaving them vulnerable to miss signs of criminal enterprise.
In many cases, especially for names that do no attract media frenzy, the autopsy surgeon exists in signature only, with ‘doms’ stupefied by alcohol being left to butcher the body as they see fit and dispatch it for cremation so all evidence is incinerated. The collection of samples from the body and video recording of the autopsy are aspirations yet to be attained as a matter of routine.
Also read: Judge Loya Post-Mortem Allegedly Manipulated by Doctor Related to BJP Minister
A ‘coroner’s court’ would solve most of these issues.
In the UK, a coroner need not be a medical professional; experienced solicitors and barristers are often appointed for the role, albeit overseen at a national level by a senior, sitting judge. Coroners have their own staff like former police personnel, or medical professionals and even lawyers where needed, along with sweeping powers including the authority to issue arrest warrants, summon anyone to give evidence – with the associated perjury caveat – subpoena whatever they require. In the event the death has been while in government custody or care, to maintain their integrity, a coroner will call a jury to deliberate on the evidence presented.
A coroner’s role is to establish the cause of death, not to assign responsibility or blame. The matter is handed over either to the police, the health and safety executive, Crown Prosecution Service or even to provide results for civil and insurance claims.
In the rural districts of India, monitoring is much tighter. In the event of an unnatural death, a magistrate, usually the circle officer, is appointed to oversee an autopsy which must be video recorded while the district civil surgeon will constitute a medical board to investigate the cause.
Districts, due to their cosy nature where people know each other, are easier to manage in this regard. Large cities are prone to high numbers of sudden deaths where, coupled with low quality and low numbers of medical staff, circumventing of already weak processes is the norm.
Also read: The Curious Case of the Bihar Top Cop in the Limelight Since Actor Sushant’s Death
Phiroze Edulji, a renowned lawyer at the Calcutta high court said, “The system needs a complete overhaul. Every postmortem must be video recorded, and the video and the postmortem report should be handed over to the victim’s family immediately. Right now, families are forced to make legal applications to the courts to get a copy of the same which should be theirs by default.”
Other vulnerabilities in the Indian system include the absence of routine collection of samples from all deaths, which will have critical evidentiary value for a later review, considering that many are Hindus headed for the cremation pyre.
More often than not, families enraged at the death of a loved one often lose momentum when faced with the option of having the body subjected to a postmortem. Their appetite to fight being diminished by the perceived butchery that their loved ones are destined for, they withdraw their protest and allow an inconclusive burial.
An independent coroner’s court is needed to standardise the investigation of all deaths across the country. Postmortems may not be necessary for all, but an impartial and proficient investigation to ascertain the cause is a must. The state coroner must avoid all political interference, perhaps answering only to the Chief Justice of the high court in each state.
As with the UK model, medical professionals of all ranks, lawyers, investigators and statutory powers are required to add both professionalism, integrity and operational independence to the office, as every citizen has a right to dignity even after death.
If you know someone – friend or family member – at risk of suicide, please reach out to them. The Suicide Prevention India Foundation maintains a list of telephone numbers they can call to speak in confidence. You could also accompany them to the nearest hospital.
Anthony Khatchaturian works as a historian and opinion writer, and has spent ten years with the Metropolitan Police Service (Scotland Yard), London. He is based in London and Kolkata.