Episode 36: The Constitutional Rebirth of Suicide Decriminalization

The Constitutional Rebirth of Suicide Decriminalization

1.0 Introduction

Suicide is a tragic death which occurs when a person voluntarily and intentionally ends their own life.^[1] According to the World Health Organization, over 720,000 people commit suicide and die each year globally.^[2] Back then, in Malaysia, an attempt to commit suicide is classified as a crime under Section 309 of the Penal Code,^[3] which can be punished with imprisonment for a term that may be extended to one year or with fine or with both. The criminalisation can be traced back to the Indian Penal Code (IPC)^[4]which was based on British Common Law.^[5]

The section, Section 309, is in pari materia with the English common law as well as the Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).^[6] By the 15th and 16th centuries, the law in England condemned, and punished in extremely harsh terms, the act of suicide which was regarded as ‘felo de se’ which means a felony of self.^[7] However, the Suicide Act 1961 was then being introduced which marked the actual decriminalisation of the ancient felony of suicide, but criminalises the abetment of suicide attempt.^[8] What made it interesting was the removal of punishment for those who died from suicide and their families was not only politically uncontroversial, but also anticlimactic.^[9]

While last time in India, Section 309 of the colonial era Indian Penal Code (IPC)^[10] has long classified attempted suicide as a criminal offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. Nevertheless, the commencement of Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 (MHCA)^[11] which replaced the Mental Health Act (MHA) of 1987^[12] and later the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 (BNS)^[13] which replaced the Indian Penal Code (IPC), led to an end of suicide criminalisation in India.^[14]

Drawing inspiration from England and India, finally on 23 March 2023, Dewan Rakyat passed the Malaysia’s Penal Code (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2023,^[15] which repealed Section 309, followed by the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 2023 and the Mental Health (Amendment) Act 2023.^[16] By decriminalising suicide, it brings up the importance of mental health, whereby seeking help is an act of courage, not a crime.^[17] The President of Malaysian Bar, Karen Cheah Yee Lynn also mentioned decriminalizing suicide is meant for those grappling with mental health challenges by shifting from punitive measures to empathy and understanding.^[18] By providing rehabilitation and medical intervention for those attempting suicide, it is widely seen as a progressive step that aligns with the broader interpretation of the "right to life" of Article 5 of Federal Constitution.^[19]

2.0 Constitutionality of Section 309

2.1.1 The Meaning of “Right to Life” under Article 5(1)

Article 5(1)^[20] of the Federal Constitution provides that “no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law.” However, the Constitution does not define the term “life,” leaving its scope to judicial interpretation. In Malaysia, the scope of the right to life remains uncertain.^[21] In contrast, Article 21 of the Indian Constitution^[22], which is pari materia with Article 5(1) of the Malaysian Federal Constitution, provides a clear and progressive right to life, making Indian jurisprudence a useful reference for developing a dynamic understanding of Article 5(1).^[23]

Likewise, Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code^[24] is pari materia to Section 309 of the Malaysian Penal Code (before the 2025 amendment)^[25], both criminalising attempted suicide and prescribing imprisonment, fine, or both.^[26] Given this close textual similarity, Indian constitutional jurisprudence provides a useful comparative framework for interpreting Article 5(1)^[27] and the constitutionality of Section 309.

In India, early judicial opinion was divided on whether the right to life includes a right to die. In Maruti Shripati Dubal v State of Maharashtra (1986)^[28], the Bombay High Court held that Article 21^[29] encompasses both the right to live and the right not to live. Drawing an analogy with Article 19^[30], which protects both the right to speak and the right not to speak, the court reasoned that personal liberty includes autonomy over one’s own life. It further held that criminalising attempted suicide under Section 309 of the IPC violated dignity and personal liberty, particularly where individuals act under extreme mental distress, and therefore declared the provision unconstitutional.^[31]

Conversely, in Chenna Jagadeeswar v State of Andhra Pradesh (1988)^[32], the Andhra Pradesh High Court rejected the existence of a constitutional right to die and upheld the validity of Section 309. The court emphasised that the provision did not mandate punishment in every case, as judicial discretion could be exercised through probation or psychiatric intervention.^[33]

This conflict was temporarily resolved by the Supreme Court in P. Rathinam v Union of India^[34], which held that Section 309 was unconstitutional. The Court characterised attempted suicide as a manifestation of mental illness rather than criminal intent and reasoned that the right to life includes the right not to be compelled to live. It concluded that attempted suicide causes no direct harm to others and does not offend public morality or policy, and therefore should not attract penal sanction. However, this decision was controversial, particularly due to concerns about protest suicides and the broader societal consequences of decriminalisation.^[35]

Thus, this position did not last long. In Gian Kaur v State of Punjab (1996)^[36], the Supreme Court overruled the earlier decision of P. Rathinam v Union of India^[37], and held that Article 21 does not include a right to die through suicide. The Court stressed the “sanctity of life” and held that suicide represents an unnatural termination of life, incompatible with the constitutional protection of life. It rejected the analogy drawn with other fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of speech, and clarified that the right to life protects existence up to the end of natural life. Nevertheless, the Court adopted a nuanced approach by affirming that the right to life includes the right to “live with dignity”. This may encompass the right of a terminally ill person to die with dignity when death is imminent, but it does not equate to a general right to end one’s life prematurely.^[38] While upholding the constitutionality of Section 309, the judgment reinforced that the provision should not be understood purely as punitive, but as reflecting an intent to preserve life and provide assistance to those in distress.^[39]

2.1.2 Is Section 309 Inconsistent with Article 5(1)?  

Having examined Indian jurisprudence, the question arises whether, in Malaysia, Section 309 is increasingly inconsistent with a modern interpretation of Article 5(1) of the Federal Constitution.

Article 5(1) protects not only freedom from unlawful deprivation of life and liberty, but also personal liberty in a broader sense.^[40] It is plain that if Art 5(1) is read as providing that any duly enacted law of Parliament can deprive a person of his constitutional safeguard under the provision, the safeguard becomes a mockery.^[41] In Tan Tek Seng v Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Pendidikan & Anor^[42], the Court of Appeal adopted a liberal interpretation of “life” under Article 5(1), holding that it encompasses more than mere existence. Justice Gopal Sri Ram explained that the right to life extends beyond mere physical survival to include the quality of life, such as lawful employment, social benefits, and a healthy environment.^[43]

If the right to life under Article 5(1) includes the right to live with dignity,^[44] then penalising individuals who attempt suicide while suffering from severe mental distress may undermine that dignity. Viewed in this light, Section 309 may be constitutionally inconsistent,^[45] as it deprives individuals of personal liberty and dignity not to prevent harm, but to punish psychological suffering. Rather than enhancing quality of life, criminalisation discourages help-seeking behaviour and denies vulnerable individuals access to mental health care and social support.^[46] Thus, by treating a suicide attempt as a criminal offence rather than a medical emergency, Section 309 risks being cruel and unreasonable.^[47]

This raises a critical question: whether criminalising attempted suicide genuinely upholds the constitutional value of life and dignity by deterring self-harm, or whether it instead exacerbates the suffering of vulnerable individuals by driving them further into despair and social marginalisation.

2.2.1 Effective Deterrent or Preferable Medical Intervention?

 This conflict was temporarily resolved by the Supreme Court in P. Rathinam v Union of India, which held that Section 309 was unconstitutional. The Court characterised attempted suicide as a manifestation of mental illness rather than criminal intent and reasoned that the right to life includes the right not to be compelled to live. It concluded that attempted suicide causes no direct harm to others and does not offend public morality or policy, and therefore should not attract penal sanction. However, this decision was controversial, particularly due to concerns about protest suicides and the broader societal consequences of decriminalisation.

During the parliamentary debates on the Penal Code (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2023, Mr Ramkarpal Singh s/o Karpal Singh, Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Law and Institutional Reform), explained that proposals to decriminalise Section 309 had been discussed as early as 2018 in meetings of the Majlis Penasihat Promosi Kesihatan Mental (MPPKM). He highlighted that between January and December 2021, 212,319 calls were received by mental health helplines—almost five times the 44,061 calls recorded in 2020. Following the upgrade of the Psychosocial Support Helpline to the Help With Empathy and Love (HEAL) line in October 2022, 16,786 client contacts were recorded within seven months, of which 155 cases involved suicidal behaviour requiring specialised intervention. With an average of 82 calls per day, these figures strongly indicate that Section 309 of the Penal Code does not function as an effective deterrent against attempted suicide.^[48]

Research demonstrates that criminalisation is ineffective in preventing suicide. Rather than addressing the underlying causes of suicidal behaviour, criminal sanctions assign blame to individuals who are often experiencing severe mental distress.^[49]Criminalisation contributes to stigma, suppresses open discussion of suicide, undermines accurate suicide reporting, and impedes the development of effective prevention strategies.^[50] Fear of legal consequences may also discourage families from reporting incidents, further isolating vulnerable individuals. In extreme cases, the prospect of punishment may even encourage individuals to ensure the completion of suicide rather than risk survival and prosecution.^[51]

Furthermore, the criminalisation of attempted suicide raises serious human rights concerns. It may deny individuals access to appropriate healthcare, social support, and protection from discrimination.^[52] A large-scale ecological study covering 171 countries found that criminalisation is associated with higher suicide rates, particularly among women in countries with lower Human Development Index (HDI) scores.^[53]

These findings demonstrate that Section 309, in its original form, is ineffective and counterproductive. Accordingly, rather than punishment, a shift towards a framework grounded in medical intervention, mental health support, and compassion is necessary to meaningfully address suicidal behaviour and to align the law with constitutional values of life and dignity.

2.3.1 Global and Regional Jurisprudence 

As of 2023, suicide remains criminalised in at least 25 of the world’s 195 countries, while a further 27 countries retain an unclear or ambiguous legal position.^[54] A study conducted by the University of Cambridge on India’s decriminalisation experience found that while legislative reform is a crucial first step, its effectiveness depends on parallel investments in mental health services, workforce development, and sustained public engagement to reduce stigma.^[55]

In India, the Law Commission of India, in its 210th Report titled “Humanization and Decriminalization of Attempt to Suicide” (2008), characterised attempted suicide as a manifestation of a ‘diseased state of mind’ and that it deserved treatment instead of punishment. Subsequently, Section 115 of the Mental Healthcare Act 2017^[56] created a statutory presumption that any person attempting suicide is suffering from severe stress and should not be investigated or prosecuted.^[57] This reform culminated in the complete removal of attempted suicide as an offence under Indian criminal law with the coming into force in July 2024.

Singapore also decriminalised attempted suicide through the Criminal Law Reform Act 2019, with effect from January 2020.^[58] This reform reflects a broader recognition that suicidal behaviour is a public health issue rather than a criminal one.^[59]

2.3.2 The Amendment

In Malaysia, the Penal Code (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2023^[60], which repealed Section 309 to decriminalise attempted suicide, was passed by the Dewan Rakyat on 22 May 2023. The amendments officially came into force on 10 September 2025, coinciding with World Suicide Prevention Day.^[61]

The reforms abolished the colonial-era law, emphasised crisis intervention, treatment, rehabilitation, and support, and shifted the legal focus from punishing vulnerable individuals to protecting and rehabilitating them.^[62] The previous law, which imposed imprisonment for attempted suicide, offered only a superficial protection of life—preserving physical existence while disregarding dignity and mental well-being. In contrast, the new framework recognises that the law best protects life by prioritising medical assessment and psychosocial support, rather than through criminal sanctions. It represents a significant shift towards a more empathetic and compassionate societal framework, aligning Malaysia with global trends in recognising suicide as a mental health issue rather than a criminal offence.^[63]

3.0       A Structured Legal Approach to Protection Over Punishment

3.1       Crisis Intervention Officers Under the Mental Health (Amendment) Act 2023

Research from Cambridge states that legal and rights-based protections must be paired with community-based mental health interventions.^[64] Together with the amendment to the Penal Code, the Mental Health Act amendments signified the efforts to prevent suicide in law. Section 11 of the Mental Health (Amendment) Act 2023^[65] introduced the role of Crisis Intervention Officers (CIO). In section 11(5)^[66], the police, the fire department, the Malaysian Civil Defence Force, the Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency and the Department of Social Welfare together constitute CIO. The amendment aims to give CIOs the authority to apprehend individuals attempting to commit suicide, as clearly set out in section 11(1)(b).^[67] Along with the abolishment of suicide criminalisation, the amendment to section 11 highlights a significant shift from punishment to treatment, further strengthening the recognition of suicide as a mental illness rather than a crime.

In addition, section 11(4)^[68] set outs CIOs must bring an apprehended person, i.e., the individual committing suicide, for psychiatric examination at a government or gazetted private psychiatric facility as soon as practicable, and in any event within 24 hours of the apprehension. This ensured immediate healthcare access for the victims. A national cohort study in South Korea found that individuals who were referred to psychiatric services within seven days after a suicide attempt had a significantly lower risk of a subsequent attempt by half compared with those who were not referred early. Therefore, instead of legal punishments, the early psychiatric intervention addressed in section 11(4) enables timely treatment of underlying mental health conditions within 24 hours, directly reducing the risk of repeat suicide attempts effectively.^[69]

While legislators supported the amendments to the Mental Health Act, they expressed several concerns. Regarding the qualifications and competence of CIOs in managing individuals with mental health conditions, concerns about the persuasion, negotiation, and psychotherapy skills of the CIOs were raised by Bentong MP Young Syefura Othman.

Responding to the concerns about the qualifications and competence of CIOs, former Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Law and Institutional Reform), Ramkarpal Singh, highlighted that the CIOs are drawn only from the police, Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency, Fire and Rescue Department, Malaysian Civil Defence Force and Welfare Department, as training and expertise are required to rescue victims.^[70] Accordingly, he underlined that the suicide prevention training programme, which includes communication and negotiation skills, has been developed by the Ministry of Health (MOH) to train frontline officers. More than 50 national-level frontline officers, such as police officers and firefighters, had been trained under this programme in 2022.^[71]

Other than that, the Malaysian Guideline on Suicide Prevention and Management, in collaboration with WHO in 2013, also showed efforts in training personnel to react promptly to a suicide crisis. It laid out a detailed implementation care plan when intervening suicide crisis, which encompasses suicide first aid, safety management, communication, administrative management, and dead body management.^[72]

Furthermore, concerns about the wide discretionary powers granted to CIOs were raised. Under section 11(2)^[73], CIOs are authorised to enter any premises when necessary to apprehend individuals attempting to commit suicide. And under section 11(3)^[74], the CIOs may forcibly enter the premises, including breaking doors or windows, and remove obstacles that block entry when exercising their powers under section 11(2). Some highlights this leads to the risk for arbitrary or subjective decision-making. However, Ramkarpal addressed this by emphasising that the intention behind section 11 is unambiguous.^[75] Ramkarpal states that the purpose of section 11 is clear: to save the victim’s life before he commits suicide. In the situation where someone is seen to want to jump from a building, the urgency of the event makes it impossible for the CIOs to consult anyone on the mode of entry at that very moment. Hence, the mode of entry is left to the discretion of the CIOs so that they are able to act immediately to serve the core purpose of section 11.^[76]

Besides that, the adequacy of remedies for individuals whose property might be damaged during a forced entry is also a concerning factor to be considered. In such cases, the Mental Health (Amendment) Act 2023 does not preclude affected parties from pursuing civil actions to recover losses. However, as clarified by Ramkarpal, the outcome of such claims depends on the findings of the factual investigation. Ultimately, it falls within the courts’ discretion to decide whether compensation is warranted and, if so, the quantum to be awarded.^[77]

3.2       The Continuing Criminalisation of Abetment in Suicide-Related Conduct

While attempted suicide is no longer an offence, the law continues to criminalise abetment. This is specifically laid out in sections 305 and 306 of the Penal Code. Section 305^[78] governs the abetment of suicide of a child or an insane person: anyone who helps or encourages the suicide of a child or a person who lacks mental capacity shall be punished with the death penalty or imprisonment for up to 20 years, as well as a fine. Section 306^[79] is more general in terms of the abetment of suicide of any person committing suicide, which is punishable with imprisonment for up to 10 years and liable to a fine. Hence, the law is clear in abetment liability to protect vulnerable individuals and discourages conduct that increases the risk of self-harm.

Significantly, the 2023 amendment to sections 305 and 306 of the Penal Code^[80] has extended abetment liability to cover the abetment of attempted suicide. This is crucial as it acknowledges that harm due to suicide exists regardless of whether the suicide attempt results in death. Specifically, the rise of digital communication has necessitated a modernisation of abetment laws to address online harms, including cyberbullying and digital encouragement to self-harm. Persistent harassment, anonymous messaging, and social media campaigns may be capable of causing severe psychological damage and encouraging suicide.^[81]

In July 2024, 30‑year‑old Malaysian TikTok content creator Rajeswary Appahu, known as Esha, was found dead at her home in Kuala Lumpur after taking her own life following sustained online harassment and threats on social media. A day before her death, she had filed a police report alleging that individuals on TikTok were trolling and threatening her with rape and violence. After her death, police charged two people with communication offences related to abusive and defamatory postings, and one person was fined RM100 under the Minor Offences Act. The penalty was widely perceived as overly lenient given the circumstances surrounding her suicide. The incident has prompted calls from authorities to strengthen cyberbullying legislation and amend the Penal Code to better address harmful online conduct.

As a result, section 507D of the Penal Code^[82], also known as the Esha clause, was brought into light following the 2025 amendment. Section 507D states that one is criminally liable for the use of threatening, abusive or insulting words with the intent to provoke another person to harm themselves, or knowing that such words are likely to do so. Notably, section 507D(2)^[83] clearly sets out that if the person being provoked attempts or commits suicide, one shall be punished with imprisonment of up to 10 years, with fine or with both. This closes the gap in proving abetment to suicide in the case of cyberbullying. The inclusion of digital conduct within the scope of abetment liability is significant. The law thereby prevents offenders from getting around traditional legal safeguards and protects the life and liberty of potential victims.

3.3       The Integrated Operation of Crisis Intervention and Abetment Liability

The reforms concerning CIOs and abetment liability function jointly to provide immediate protection and targeted deterrence in committing suicides, as well as encouragement of suicide. CIOs operate to rescue individuals at risk of self-harm, offering immediate access to psychiatric evaluation and medical care, while victims would not fear the threat of criminal punishments. This ensures that vulnerable persons receive timely intervention and reduces the likelihood of irreversible harm.

At the same time, the retention and expansion of abetment liability serve a complementary role: by imposing accountability on third parties who exploit, encourage, or facilitate suicidal behaviour, the law addresses external threats to personal safety and autonomy. By differentiating between individuals in crisis and those who would harm them, the legal system reconciles compassion with accountability.

The integrated approach illustrates a comprehensive legal approach, wherein the protective powers of CIOs and the punitive measures for abetment operate in harmony.

4.0 Conclusion

On the same day as World Suicide Prevention Day 2025 on 10 September,^[84] Malaysia’s government officially repealed Section 309 of the Penal Code, through the commencement of Penal Code (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 2023,^[85] along with the Criminal Procedure Code and the Mental Health Act, meaning that attempting suicide is no longer a criminal offence.^[86] The timing of this change, which enforced on World Suicide Prevention Day, is deeply symbolic. World Suicide Prevention Day globally promotes reducing stigma around suicidal behaviour and encourages people to seek support without fear of judgment or criminal penalties. By repealing Section 309 on this day, Malaysia’s legal reform aligns its domestic law, signaling a shift from punishment toward empathy and support for individuals in distress.^[87] This timing reinforces the message that seeking help is preferable to criminalisation, and that society should provide care rather than punishment to those in mental health crises.

These reforms also reflect Malaysia’s Federal Constitution’s ability to evolve in response to changing societal norms and international human rights standards. Article 5 of the Federal Constitution^[88] guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which can be interpreted to support laws that protect life and facilitate care, rather than penalise people already in vulnerable circumstances. Repealing Section 309 demonstrates how constitutional rights can be upheld in a contemporary context that recognises suicide attempts as a public health issue requiring support, but not sanction. Importantly, this shift underscores a broader human dignity framework which aligns with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) treaty^[89]. The focus is moving away from seeing individuals who attempt suicide as offenders and toward recognising them as people needing compassionate intervention and mental health support. Mental health services have been strengthened under the reformed laws, including provisions for “Crisis Intervention Officers” and structured mechanisms to provide immediate assistance.

In conclusion, the removal of Section 309 is a significant victory for Article 5 of the Constitution, affirming that the state’s ultimate duty is to protect and preserve life through care rather than through punitive measures. This reform demonstrates that legal systems can adapt to contemporary understandings of mental health and human rights, resetting the legal response to suicide from punishment to protection.

^[1] Lifeline Australia. (n.d.). Suicide. Lifeline Australia. Retrieved from <https://www.lifeline.org.au/get-help/support-toolkit/topics/suicide#what-is-suicide>. Site accessed on 13 Jan 2026.

^[2] World Health Organization. (2025, March 25). Suicide. World Health Organization. Retrieved from <https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/suicide >. Site accessed on 13 January 2026:

^[3] Penal Code (Act 574) (Malaysia) s 309.

^[4] Indian Penal Code, 1860 (India).

^[5] Aziff Azuddin & Idlan Zakaria. (2020, Oct 10). Suicide not a crime. The Centre. Retrieved from <https://www.centre.my/post/suicide-not-a-crime>. Site accessed on 13 Jan 2026.

^[6] Indian Penal Code, 1860 (India) s 306.

^[7] See MacDonald, M., & Murphy, T. R. (1990). Sleepless Souls: Suicide in Early Modern England. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 15, for vivid descriptions of the ‘punishment’ of those who had died from suicide: ‘their bodies were interred profanely, with a macabre ceremony prescribed by popular custom. The night following the inquest, officials of the parish, the church wardens and their helpers, carried the corpse to a crossroads and threw it naked into a pit. A wooden stake was hammered through the body, pinioning it in the grave, and the hole was filled in’.

^[8] Suicide Act 1961 (UK), c 60. Retrieved from <https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/9-10/60>. Site accessed on 13 Jan 2026.

^[9] Wicks, E. (2021). Assisted dying reframed in the context of English law’s approach to suicide. Medical Law International, 20(4), 287, 287–307. Retrieved from <https://doi.org/10.1177/0968533220982637 >. Site accessed on 13 Jan 2026.

^[10] Indian Penal Code, 1860 (India) s 306.

^[11] Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 (India).

^[12] Mental Health Act, 1987 (India).

^[13] Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (India).

^[14] Pillutla, R. (2023, Oct 30). Decriminalising attempted suicide in India: the new penal code. Centre for Mental Health Law & Policy – India Mental Health Observatory. Retrieved from <https://cmhlp.org/imho/blog/decriminalising-attempted-suicide-in-india-the-new-penal-code/ >. Site accessed on 13 Jan 2026.

^[15] Penal Code (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2023 (Malaysia).

^[16] Rhea Yasmine Alis Haizan. (2023, Jun 21). Malaysia law to pass bills to decriminalise suicide attempts and improve mental health services. Channel News Asia. Retrieved from https://www.channelnewsasia.com/asia/malaysia-law-pass-bills-decriminalise-suicide-attempts-mental-health-parliament-3576866. Site accessed on 13 Jan 2026.

^[17] International Association for Suicide Prevention. (2023, Sept 14). World Health Organization launches policy brief. International Association for Suicide Prevention. Retrieved from <https://www.iasp.info/2023/09/14/world-health-organization-launches-policy-brief/ >. Site accessed on 13 Jan 2026.

^[18] President of the Malaysian Bar. (2024). Speech by the President of the Malaysian Bar. Malaysian Bar. Retrieved from <https://www.malaysianbar.org.my/cms/upload_files/document/OLY%202024%20-%20Speech%20by%20the%20President%20of%20the%20Malaysian%20Bar.pdf >. Site accessed on 13 Jan 2026.

^[19] Federal Constitution (Malaysia) art 5.

^[20] Federal Constitution (Malaysia) art 5(1).

^[21] Hashim, N. (2013). The need for a dynamic jurisprudence of right to ‘life’ under Article 5(1) of the Federal Constitution. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 101, 299–306. Retrieved from <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042813020995.> Site accessed on 9 Jan 2026.

^[22] The Constitution of India, art 21.

^[23] Hashim, N. (2013). The need for a dynamic jurisprudence of right to ‘life’ under Article 5(1) of the Federal Constitution. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 101, 299–306. Retrieved from <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042813020995.> Site accessed on 9 Jan 2026.

^[24] The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) s 309.

^[25] Penal Code [Act 574] s 309.

^[26] Ahmad Shahrulnizam, A. D., & Mohamed Anas, M. Z. (n.d.). Decriminalizing suicide: A legal study in Malaysia. i-WIN Library / International Waqaf Ilmu Nusantara Library. Retrieved from <https://waqafilmunusantara.com/decriminalizing-suicide-a-legal-study-in-malaysia/.> Site accessed on 3 Jan 2025.

^[27] Federal Constitution (Malaysia) art 5(1).

^[28] Maruti Shripati Dubal v State Of Maharashtra (1986).

^[29] The Constitution of India, art. 21.

^[30] The Constitution of India, art. 19.

^[31] Singh, A. (n.d.). Case Comment: A Critical Analysis of the Constitutional Validity of Section 309 of IPC in Maruti Shripati Dubal vs. State of Maharashtra. Journal of Legal Research and Juridical Sciences, 4(3), 814, 815. Retrieved from <https://jlrjs.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/75.-Aarya-Singh.pdf>. Site accessed on 3 Jan 2025.

^[32] Chenna Jagadeeswar and another v State of Andhra Pradesh (1988) Cri LJ 549.

^[33] Senapati, P. (2022). Criminalising a tragedy: A critical analysis of Section 309 of the IPC and its current status. Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law, 2. Retrieved from <https://ijirl.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/CRIMINALISING-A-TRAGEDY-A-CRITICAL-ANALYSIS-OF-SECTION-309-OF-THE-IPC-AND-ITS-CURRENT-STATUS.pdf>. Site accessed on 9 Jan 2026.

^[34] P. Rathinam v Union of India (1994) 3 SCC 394.

^[35] Senapati, P. (2022). Criminalising a tragedy: A critical analysis of Section 309 of the IPC and its current status. Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law, 2. Retrieved from <https://ijirl.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/CRIMINALISING-A-TRAGEDY-A-CRITICAL-ANALYSIS-OF-SECTION-309-OF-THE-IPC-AND-ITS-CURRENT-STATUS.pdf>. Site accessed on 9 Jan 2026.

^[36] Gian Kaur v State of Punjab (1996) 2 SCC 648.

^[37] P. Rathinam v Union of India (1994) 3 SCC 394.

^[38] Smt. Gian Kaur vs The State Of Punjab (1996) 2 SCC 648. Indian Kanoon. Retrieved from <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/217501/>. Site accessed on 8 Jan 2025.

^[39] Dhyeya Law. (n.d.). Gian Kaur v State of Punjab. Retrieved from <https://www.dhyeyalaw.in/gian-kaur-v-state-of-punjab.> Site accessed on 3 Jan 2025.

^[40] Shad Saleem Faruqi. (2009, Oct 24). Human rights, international law and municipal courts. Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM). Retrieved from <https://suhakam.org.my/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Human-Rights-International-Law-24.10.09.pdf>. Site accessed on 9 Jan 2026.

^[41] Das, C. V. (2002). ‘Life’ under Article 5: What should it be? The Journal of the Malaysian Bar, XXXI(4), 68–81. Malaysian Bar. Retrieved from <https://www.malaysianbar.org.my/cms/upload_files/document/68-81_Dato_Dr_Cyrus_Das-2.pdf>. Site accessed on 9 Jan 2026.

^[42] Tan Tek Seng v Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Pendidikan & Anor [1996] 1 MLJ 261.

^[43] Das, C. V. (2002). ‘Life’ under Article 5: What should it be? The Journal of the Malaysian Bar, XXXI(4), 68–81. Malaysian Bar. Retrieved from <https://www.malaysianbar.org.my/cms/upload_files/document/68-81_Dato_Dr_Cyrus_Das-2.pdf>. Site accessed on 9 Jan 2026.

^[44] Smt. Gian Kaur vs The State Of Punjab [AIR 1996 SC 946].

^[45] Raghavan, S., Sirinivasan, P., & Chandravadhani R. (2024). Attempted suicide in India: A legal and ethical analysis. International Journal of Novel Research and Development, 9(10). Retrieved from <https://ijnrd.org/papers/IJNRD2410254.pdf>. Site accessed on 11 Jan 2026; Law Commission of India. (1971, Jun). Forty-Second Report on the Indian Penal Code. Law Commission of India.

^[46] Ochuku, B. K., Johnson, N. E., Osborn, T. L., Wasanga, C. M., & Ndetei, D. M. (2022). Centering decriminalization of suicide in low- and middle-income countries on effective suicide prevention strategies. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 13, 1034206. Retrieved from<https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9712720/>. Site accessed on 9 Jan 2026.

^[47] Raghavan, S., Sirinivasan, P., & Chandravadhani R. (2024). Attempted suicide in India: A legal and ethical analysis. International Journal of Novel Research and Development, 9(10). Retrieved from <https://ijnrd.org/papers/IJNRD2410254.pdf>. Site accessed on 11 Jan 2026; Law Commission of India. (1971, Jun). Forty-Second Report on the Indian Penal Code. Law Commission of India.

^[48] Malaysia, Parliamentary Debates, Representative, Fifteenth Parliament, Second Session, 22 May 2023, pp 53, 69 (Alice Lau Kiong Yieng).

^[49] Relate Malaysia. (2017, Aug 30). The Malaysian perspective on the criminalization of suicide. Relate Malaysia. Retrieved from<https://relate.com.my/the-malaysian-perspective-on-the-criminalization-of-suicide/>. Site accessed on 9 Jan 2026.

^[50] Ochuku, B. K., Johnson, N. E., Osborn, T. L., Wasanga, C. M., & Ndetei, D. M. (2022). Centering decriminalization of suicide in low- and middle-income countries on effective suicide prevention strategies. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 13, 1034206. Retrieved from<https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9712720/>. Site accessed on 9 Jan 2026.

^[51] Lim, C. (2013, Feb 20). Suicide laws deter treatment, not attempts. Association of Women for Action and Research. Retrieved from<http://www.aware.org.sg/2013/02/suicide-law-deters-the-distressed-from-getting-help/>. Site accessed on 9 Jan 2026.

^[52] World Health Organization. (2023, Sept 12). Policy brief on the health aspects of decriminalization of suicide and suicide attempts. Mental Health, Brain Health and Substance Use Team (MSD), World Health Organization, 15. Retrieved from<https://iris.who.int/server/api/core/bitstreams/f5e481d9-fd9c-4d39-a438-3ddbd229942d/content>.  Site accessed on 9 Jan 2026.

^[53] Wu, K. C.-C., Cai, Z., Chang, Q., Chang, S.-S., Yip, P. S. F., & Chen, Y.-Y. (2022). Criminalisation of suicide and suicide rates: An ecological study of 171 countries in the world. BMJ Open. Retrieved from <https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/12/2/e049425>. Site accessed on 9 Jan 2026.

^[54] LifeLine International. (2023, Oct 23). Decriminalise suicide worldwide: A global campaign. Suicide Decriminalisation Network. Retrieved from <https://www.suicide-decrim.network/posts/decriminalise-suicide-worldwide-a-global-campaign-by-life-line-international>. Site accessed on 9 Jan 2026.

^[55] Syed Jaymal Zahiid (2025, Sept 20). From crime to care: Why Malaysia decriminalised suicide after nearly a century. Malaymail. Retrieved from <https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2025/09/20/from-crime-to-care-why-malaysia-decriminalised-suicide-after-nearly-a-century/191396>. Site accessed on 8 Jan 2025.

^[56] Mental Healthcare Act 2017 (Act 820) s 115.

^[57] Bardhan, A. (2025, May 5). Not a sin, not a crime: Decriminalization of ‘attempt to suicide’. Respekt.in. Retrieved from<https://respekt.in/not-a-sin-not-a-crime-decriminalization-of-attempt-to-suicide/>. Site accessed on 3 Jan 2025.

^[58] CodeBlue. (2023, Sept 20). WHO: Decriminalisation reduced deaths by suicide in Singapore. CodeBlue. Retrieved from<https://codeblue.galencentre.org/2023/09/who-decriminalisation-reduced-deaths-by-suicide-in-singapore/>. Site accessed on 9 Jan 2026.

^[59]  LifeLine International. (2023, Oct 23). Case study of decriminalisation in Singapore. Suicide Decriminalisation Network. Retrieved from<https://www.suicide-decrim.network/posts/case-study-of-decriminalisation-in-singapore>. Site accessed on 9 Jan 2026.

^[60] Penal Code (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2023.

^[61] Syed Jaymal Zahiid (2025, Sept 20). From crime to care: Why Malaysia decriminalised suicide after nearly a century. Malaymail. Retrieved from <https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2025/09/20/from-crime-to-care-why-malaysia-decriminalised-suicide-after-nearly-a-century/191396>. Site accessed on 8 Jan 2025.

^[62] BERNAMA. (2025, Sept 10). Government enforces three acts to address suicide. Retrieved from <https://www.bernama.com/en/news.php/?id=2466074>. Site accessed on 9 Jan 2026.

^[63] Edwin Paramjothy Michael Muniandy, D. (2024). Criminal justice system in Malaysia: Moving towards a more compassionate society. [2024] 2 MLJ ccxciii.

^[64] Ganguli D, Singh P and Das A (2025). Decriminalizing suicide: the 2017 Mental Healthcare Act and suicide mortality in India, 2001–2020. Cambridge Prisms: Global Mental Health, 12, e74, 1–7. Retrieved from <https://doi.org/10.1017/gmh.2025.10031>. Site accessed on 14 Jan 2026.

^[65] Mental Health (Amendment) Act 2023 (Act A1693) (Malaysia) s11.

^[66] Mental Health (Amendment) Act 2023 (Act A1693) (Malaysia) s11(5).

^[67] Mental Health (Amendment) Act 2023 (Act A1693) (Malaysia) s11(1)(b).

^[68] Mental Health (Amendment) Act 2023 (Act A1693) (Malaysia) s11(4).

^[69] Kim Hyewon, Kim Yuwon, Shin Myung-Hee, Park Yoo-Jung, Park Hyung-Eun, Fava Maurizio, …, Jeon Hong Jin. (2022). Early psychiatric referral after attempted suicide helps prevent suicide reattempts: A longitudinal national cohort study in South Korea. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 13. Retrieved from <https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychiatry/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.607892/full>. Site accessed on 14 Jan 2026.

^[70] Nor Ain Mohamed Radhi. (2023, May 24). Training is crucial for crisis intervention officers - NGOs. New Straits Time. Retrieved from <https://www.nst.com.my/news/nation/2023/05/912885/training-crucial-crisis-intervention-officers-ngos>. Site accessed on 14 Jan 2026.

^[71] CodeBlue. (2023, May 24). Dewan Rakyat Passes Amendments To Mental Health Act. Retrieved from <https://codeblue.galencentre.org/2023/05/dewan-rakyat-passes-amendments-to-mental-health-act/>. Site accessed on 14 Jan 2026.

^[72] Ministry of Health Malaysia. (2013). Malaysian Guideline on Suicide Prevention and Management. Retrieved from <https://www.moh.gov.my/moh/resources/Penerbitan/Garis%20Panduan/Pengurusan%20KEsihatan%20&%20kawalan%20pykit/Modul%20unit%20mental%202017/Malaysian_Guidelines_On_Suicide_Prevention_And_managment.pdf>. Site accessed on 14 Jan 2026.

^[73] Mental Health (Amendment) Act 2023 (Act A1693) (Malaysia) s11(2).

^[74] Mental Health (Amendment) Act 2023 (Act A1693) (Malaysia) s11(3)(a); s11(3)(b).

^[75] CodeBlue. (2023, May 24). Dewan Rakyat Passes Amendments To Mental Health Act. Retrieved from <https://codeblue.galencentre.org/2023/05/dewan-rakyat-passes-amendments-to-mental-health-act/>. Site accessed on 14 Jan 2026.

^[76] CodeBlue. (2023, May 24). Dewan Rakyat Passes Amendments To Mental Health Act. Retrieved from <https://codeblue.galencentre.org/2023/05/dewan-rakyat-passes-amendments-to-mental-health-act/>. Site accessed on 14 Jan 2026.

^[77] CodeBlue. (2023, May 24). Dewan Rakyat Passes Amendments To Mental Health Act. Retrieved from <https://codeblue.galencentre.org/2023/05/dewan-rakyat-passes-amendments-to-mental-health-act/>. Site accessed on 14 Jan 2026.

^[78] Penal Code (Act 574) (Malaysia) s305.

^[79] Penal Code (Act 574) (Malaysia) s306.

^[80] Penal Code (Amendment) (No.2) Act 2023 (Act 1691) (Malaysia) s305, s306.

^[81] Nurulhuda Ahmad Razali, Nazli Ismail Nawang, & Shariffah Nuridah Aishah Syed Nong Mohamad. (2022). Cyberbullying in Malaysia: An analysis of the existing laws. International Journal of Law, Government and Communication (IJLGC), 7(30). Retrieved from <https://web.archive.org/web/20230118062004id_/http://www.ijlgc.com/PDF/IJLGC-2022-30-12-10.pdf>. Site accessed on 14 Jan 2026.

^[82] Penal Code (Amendment) Act 2025 (Act 574) (Malaysia) s507D.

^[83] Penal Code (Amendment) Act 2025 (Act 574) (Malaysia) s507D(2).

^[84] World Health Organization. (2025, Sep 10). World Suicide Prevention Day 2025. Retrieved from <https://www.who.int/campaigns/world-suicide-prevention-day/2025>. Site accessed on 13 Jan 2026.

^[85] Penal Code (Amendment) Bill 2023 (Malaysia).

^[86] The Sun (Malaysia). (2025, Sep 9). Law repealed — suicide attempts no longer criminal. Retrieved from <https://thesun.my/news/malaysia-news/law-repealed-suicide-attempts-no-longer-criminal-bl14863222/>. Site accessed on 13 Jan 2026.

^[87] The Sun (Malaysia). (2025, Sep 10). Government enforces three Acts to decriminalise suicide attempts in Malaysia. The Sun (Malaysia). Retrieved from <https://thesun.my/news/malaysia-news/government-enforces-three-acts-to-decriminalise-suicide-attempts-in-malaysia-il14869753/>. Site accessed on 13 Jan 2026.

^[88] Federal Constitution (Malaysia) art 5.

^[89] United Nations. (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Optional Protocol. Retrieved from<https://www.un.org/disabilities/documents/convention/convoptprot-e.pdf>. Site accessed on 13 Jan 2026.