The Legal Dilemma Of Santhara - Exploring Its Compatibility With Article 21 Of The Indian Constitution
Author: LawSphereX
Category: Constitutional & Human Rights
Published:
Updated:
THE LEGAL DILEMMA OF SANTHARA: EXPLORING ITS
COMPATIBILITY WITH ARTICLE 21 OF THE INDIAN
CONSTITUTION
Samriddhi Gupta, Indian Institute of Management, Rohtak
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Santhara, a voluntary vow of fasting till death in Jainism, has prompted heated legal and ethical arguments in India. Santhara is seen by the Jain community as a road to purification and liberation, representing a calm acceptance of death in pursuit of moksha. However, its junction with India's legal structure, especially Article 21 of the Constitution, which protects the right to life and personal liberty, poses complicated issues. The primary question in the discussion is whether Santhara should be legally recognized as a religious practice or considered suicide. The Rajasthan High Court's decision, which found Santhara non-essential to Jainism, demonstrates how complex the topic is. This decision has sparked debate about whether the state has the authority to control religious activities, particularly when public health, morality, and the sanctity of life are at issue.
This legal challenge forces Santhara practitioners to strike a difficult balance between their spiritual convictions and broader societal norms, especially since Article 25 of the Indian Constitution guarantees religious freedom subject to restrictions imposed in the interests of public order, morality, and health. The vagueness surrounding the "essential practices" concept complicates matters further, with judges tasked with determining what constitutes a basic religious activity worthy of constitutional protection. This case demonstrates the conflict between religious freedom and the state's obligation to preserve life. A detailed investigation of Santhara's legal and ethical elements is critical for understanding
the societal impact of recognising or forbidding it.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Whether the practice of Santhara violates Article 21 of The Constitution of India • Whether the practice of Santhara is an attempt to suicide
Whether the practice of Santhara is a criminal offence under sections 309 and 306 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860
INTRODUCTION
Jainism, with Buddhism and Hinduism, is one of India's oldest ancient religions. The Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 applies to Jains as well as Hindus. Scholars think Jainism developed in the Ganga Basin of eastern India between the 7th and 5th century BCE, with Santhara being one of its earliest rituals. 1 The practice is considered honorable, and individuals who participate are held in great regard by the community. The principle of "tyaga," or renunciation, is fundamental to Jainism, as is "Aparigraha," which means non-possession. Jains are taught the virtue of renunciation from a young age, and they strive to give up different worldly pleasures, including eating. 2 Their fasting approach is deliberate and differs depending on individual capabilities. Many Jains follow the practice of abstaining from meals after sunset, known as "chauvihar.
" Furthermore, they avoid eating meat or animal products, which aligns with their devotion to nonviolence, or "ahimsa. " In the Swetamber sect, a ritual called as "maaskhaman" is common, in which people fast for a month and drink only warm water once a day. Jain monks, known as Sadhus, practice even greater renunciation, eating only once a day and consuming no more than 32 morsels, including water. 3 They may even refuse meals if certain spiritual prerequisites are not satisfied. In addition to fasting, Jains practice "Dana" (charity) and Aparigraha, which demonstrate their devotion to limiting material attachments. The foundation of Jainism is to achieve pleasure via the sacrifice of earthly wants. 4
DEFINITION OF SANTHARA
Santhara is an old religious practice in Jainism that involves fasting to death.5 It is also known 1 Paul Dundas, ‘Jainism’ [Britannica, 13 September 2024] accessed
18 September 2024.
2 Sushil Kumar, ‘CONCEPT OF SALLEKHNA AND SANTHARA IN JAINISM – DISTINCT FROM
SUICIDE OR ACTIVE EUTHANASIA’ [Justice Reflected, 26 August 2022] accessed 7 September 2024.
3 Sushil Kumar, ‘CONCEPT OF SALLEKHNA AND SANTHARA IN JAINISM – DISTINCT FROM
SUICIDE OR ACTIVE EUTHANASIA’ [Justice Reflected, 26 August 2022] accessed 7 September 2024. 4 Paul Dundas, ‘Jainism’ [Britannica, 13 September 2024] accessed
18 September 2024.
5 Nikhil Parakh, ‘SANTHARA: AN EXCEPTION OR CRIME UNDER PROVISIONS OF INDIAN PENAL
as Sallekhana and is voluntary in nature, which means people have the choice to practice this ritual in Jainism. This practice is usually practiced by devout Jain practitioners who want to embrace death to attain moksha, that is spiritual liberation. This practice involves voluntarily renouncing all earthly attachments, food, and water to attain the stage of ultimate peace. Two core principles of Jainism are ahimsa and self-control. 6 This practice in Jainism is seen as a symbolic expression of these core principles. The practice of Santhara is not considered suicide by the followers of Jainism; instead, it is considered a sacred act that represents the purification of the soul. Before beginning with the practice of santhara, there is a careful consideration of one’s health and life circumstances.
It’s not a spontaneous decision; rather, it is made after consultation with the spiritual leaders.
RELIGIOUS SIGNIFICANCE OF SANTHARA
In Jainism, people believe that the body is transient, i. e. , not permanent, and will perish with time. While the body is viewed as transient, the soul is eternal and exists for infinity. The attachment to the physical world and materialistic things is seen as a source of suffering. It is believed that the attachment to the physical world ultimately leads to an increase in Karma, which binds the soul to the cycle of birth and rebirth. Until the attachment to the physical world does not end, the soul will be stuck in a vicious cycle and will not be able to free itself from the sufferings of the world. Jainism provides a medium for its followers to break through this vicious cycle of Karma. This medium is undertaking the practice of Santhara through which a practitioner aims to break free from the physical world and cycle of birth and rebirth and purify their souls.
Santhara is usually practiced by someone who is old or very sick and feels that they have fulfilled all their obligations and duties in their life. In Jainism, it is not seen as suicide but rather a way to accept death with dignity and by choice. Nobody knows when he/she will die, however through Santhara, the person has the right to choose whether he is ready for death. Santhara is completely voluntary and is not compulsory for all the followers of Jainism. Furthermore, if a person has started with the practice of santhara, the person has the option to end the practice at any point. Jains believe that “life is a journey towards spiritual growth and CODE, 1860’ [Indian Legal Solution Journal of Criminal and Constitutional Law, 15 July 2019] accessed 12 September 2024.
6 Sushil Kumar, ‘CONCEPT OF SALLEKHNA AND SANTHARA IN JAINISM – DISTINCT FROM
SUICIDE OR ACTIVE EUTHANASIA’ [Justice Reflected, 26 August 2022] accessed 7 September 2024.
the Santhara is the last step. ” 7The person undergoing Santhara indulges in this practice because he wants to detach from their body and end their all suffering. They want to achieve the state of ‘spiritual purity’. During Santhara, the person is surrounded by their family, friends, and the religious community who support their decision of Santhara and pray for them. The person’s decision to undergo Santhara is seen as a very brave and noble act and therefore, is respected and seen with high regard. For example, a Jain elder who is old and suffering from a painful illness decides to choose Santhara instead of undergoing medical treatment. The family of the elder would support this decision and facilitate him in indulging in this practice. For the family, it would be a matter of great honor that their family member has decided to practice such a brave act.
Santhara is one of the ancient practices of Jainism, dating back to Lord Mahavira, the spiritual teacher of Jainism. 8 Santhara as a practice embodies the principles of non-violence and rejection of all worldly pleasures. It also rejects all forms of harm to oneself or others. Jainism as a religion places great emphasis on asceticism. Asceticism refers to a lifestyle that rejects all the materialistic pleasures and proposes a life of simplicity and discipline. Jain monks are often known for their vows of celibacy and non-attachment. Santhara is a step forward to asceticism wherein the person not only renounces materialistic pleasures but also gives up the most basic necessities of life, i. e. , food and water, and does this voluntarily to achieve the highest state of self-actualization. They believe that to achieve Moksha and purify their soul, they must go through a tough challenge.
Santhara is seen as a deeply personal and spiritual decision of a person that cannot be interfered with by other people as this practice reflects the core values of Jainism in the most tangible way. The principle of Anekantavada is a crucial concept in Jainism. 9 This principle explains that how reality is complex and is perceived by everyone differently based on their experiences, values and morals. Further it explains that truth is relative and depends on the standpoint of the 7 Paul Dundas, ‘Jainism’ [Britannica, 13 September 2024] accessed
18 September 2024.
8 Sushil Kumar, ‘CONCEPT OF SALLEKHNA AND SANTHARA IN JAINISM – DISTINCT FROM
SUICIDE OR ACTIVE EUTHANASIA’ [Justice Reflected, 26 August 2022] accessed 7 September 2024.
9 Sushil Kumar, ‘CONCEPT OF SALLEKHNA AND SANTHARA IN JAINISM – DISTINCT FROM
SUICIDE OR ACTIVE EUTHANASIA’ [Justice Reflected, 26 August 2022] accessed 7 September 2024.
observer. It challenges the idea of absolute truth. This principle plays a crucial role in understanding Santhara. What may seem as a spiritual activity to one group might be seen from a complete different lens by others. Whether a practice is valid or not depends on the standpoint of the observer. Therefore, according to Jainism, a person going through Santhara has a different perspective than the others. Santhara is not merely a physical act but a one that involves introspection, meditation and culmination of values such as forgiveness and compassion. Jainism is broadly divided into two sects- the Digambaras and the Svetambara. Both sects recognize Santhara as an honorable and spiritual practice. Santhara practice is considered voluntary in both sects; however, the Digambara sect views Santhara as an ideal way to end life.
The Svetambara sect is cautious in this practice and requires a person to consult with spiritual leaders before beginning the practice. Santhara forms an integral practice of both sects and is a highly respected and revered practice within Jainism. For those who practice, it's not a way to end life, but a journey leading to soul purification.
RIGHT TO DIE
To evaluate the role of the right to die in assessing the legitimacy of Santhara, it is necessary to examine its history and relationship to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.10 While Article
21 protects the right to life, there have long been discussions over whether the right to die
should be included.11 Landmark cases like Common Cause v. Union of India12 has gradually recognized the right to die with dignity, particularly in the context of passive euthanasia. This raises questions about whether Santhara can also be protected under this evolving legal framework. The idea of the right to die was first brought in P. Rathinam v. Union of India,13 wherein the court concluded that section 309 of the Indian Penal Code14 is unconstitutional and that Article 21 includes the right to not live. This was the first time the right to die was given consideration in the Indian legal system.
10 The Constitution of India, Art 21
11 ‘Article 21: Understanding The Right to Life and Personal Liberty from Case Laws’, [Lawctopus, 12
December 2023] accessed 2 September 2024.
12 Common Cause v Union of India [2018] AIR 2018 SC 1665.
13 P Rathinam v Union of India [1994] SCC (3) 394 JT.
14 The Indian Penal Code 1860, s 309
Another landmark case in the evolution of the right to die was Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab,15 wherein the constitutionality of section 309 of the IPC16 was questioned. This landmark case reversed the judgment given in the P Rathinam case. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of section 309 of the Indian Penal Code and stated that the right to die cannot be included in the right to life as it would undermine the very essence of the constitution which is preserving life. The court also observed that the State has a duty to protect life and prevent suicide, and hence, Section 309 IPC17 is a valid exercise of the State's power to protect the lives of its citizens. Furthermore, the debate on the right to die was continued through the case of Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India18 and others wherein the court differentiated between passive euthanasia and active euthanasia.
The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment, rejected the plea for active euthanasia but allowed passive euthanasia in exceptional cases under strict guidelines. The Court held that a person has a right to die with dignity and that the withdrawal of life support to a person in a permanently vegetative state could be allowed if it was in the best interest of the patient and was done with the permission of a High Court. Another important case in addressing the issue of the right to die was Common Cause v Union of India,19 wherein the court addressed the question of whether the individual has a right to die with dignity, especially with use of passive euthanasia. The Supreme Court, in 2018, ruled that the right to die with dignity is a fundamental right and that individuals have a right to refuse medical treatment that help them in survival.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court, in January 2023 modified it’s 2018 guidelines related to passive euthanasia, making it easier for terminally ill patients to die with dignity. The constitutionality of the right to die has changed substantially in India. Initially, such a right was not recognised under Article 21 of the Constitution20, which protects the right to life. However, over time, legal discussions and cases such as Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996), Aruna Shanbaug (2011), and Common Cause v. Union of India (2018) have influenced the conversation. While the right to die remains unrecognised, the courts have
15 Gian Kaur v State of Punjab [1996] SCC (2) 648 JT
16 The Indian Penal Code 1860, s 309
17 Ibid 15
18 Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v Union of India [2011] (4) SCC 454
19 Common Cause v Union of India [2018] AIR 2018 SC 1665
20 The Constitution of India, Art 21
gradually accepted the right to die with dignity, permitting passive euthanasia and living wills, reflecting an advanced conception of human autonomy and choices regarding death.
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM VS RIGHT TO LIFE
In 2015, a judgment was passed by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Nikhil Soni V Union of India21 that banned Santhara. A public interest litigation was filed by a lawyer, Mr. Nikhil Soni for banning the practice of Santhara as it was a practice of self-destruction. The High Court allowed the petition, directing the State authorities to ban the practice of Santhara and treat it as a criminal offense punishable under section 309 of the Indian penal Code. 22 The state was instructed to prohibit the practice of Santhara in Jainism and encouragement of this practice to be treated as a criminal offense under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code23, which states the punishment for the abetment of suicide.
Any complaint regarding this practice should be registered as a criminal case, investigated by the police, and handled according to the laws in the Indian Constitution and Section 309 or 306 of the IPC. The petitioner argued that Santhara, although a highly sacred ritual in Jainism, does not form an essential religious practice and, therefore, is not protected in the Indian Constitution under Article 2524. Under Article 25 of the Constitution, individuals are granted the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate their religion, subject to public order, morality, and health. However, under Jainism, Santhara is not mandatory, and Jainism can be practised without practising Santhara. Since Article 25 is not an absolute right, it does not extend to practices that are not essential and integral to religion. The petitioner mentioned the case of the State of Gujarat V.
Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat and Ors (2005)25, wherein a constitution bench addressed whether the state could impose a total ban on the slaughtering of cows. The appellants were involved in the business of slaughtering and selling meat of animals. They challenged the constitutionality of the Essential Commodities and Cattle (Control) Act, 195826 issued by the Gujarat government which put a complete ban on the slaughter of bulls or bullocks. The High Court ruled in favour of the government that the ban was reasonable and aimed at reducing bull slaughtering. Court
21 Nikhil Soni v Union of India [2015] Cri LJ 4951
22 The Indian Penal Code 1860, s 309
23 The Indian Penal Code 1860, s 306
24 The Constitution of India, Art 25
25 State of Gujarat v Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat and Ors [2005] (8) SCC 534
26 Essential Commodities and Cattle (Control) Act 1958
reasoned that the Slaughtering of bulls does not form an essential practice on the occasion of Bakra Id and optional ceremonies do not fall under the ambit of Article 25(1)27. However, on the contrary, it is common knowledge that bulls are worshipped in hindu religion on specific festivals. The petitioner argued that Santhara involves voluntary renunciation of food and water, which makes this with intent to embrace death, which makes Santhara a selfdestructive practice. 28 The petitioner contends that this practice violates Article 21 of the Indian Constitution,29 which guarantees the fundamental right to life. The fundamental premise of Article 21 is protection of life and liberty and since in Santhara the person fasts with an intent to achieve death, the fundamental right is violated. According to the petitioner, the right to die cannot be included in Article 21 i.
e, the right to life, as this would undermine the very essence of the right itself. The petitioner compares the practice of santhara to use of euthanasia arguing that in both cases it involves termination of life. They further added that right to die, is not constitutionally protected right and the practices that promote this idea should be prohibited. A state’s primary responsibility is to protect it’s citizens from any harm or destruction and
permitting santhara is against that principle. The petitioner requested the court for the discontinuation of Santhara, asserting that the state has a moral and constitutional obligation to intervene in order to prevent this form of voluntary death. While acknowledging the spiritual significance attached to this practice, the petitioner maintains that the state must prioritize the protection of life and ensure that religious freedom is not just used as a shield to continue violating constitutional principles. 30 The respondent while defending Santhara, stated that Santhara is a vow for self-purification, meditation, and detachment from materialistic possessions. It is a long-standing religious practice in Jainism and cannot be equated with voluntary suicide. Santhara is seen as a spiritual vow aimed at liberation from karmic cycles, not an escape from life’s struggles.
Suicide and Santhara cannot be compared as they both are on a completely different spectrum. Suicide involves emotional distress, fear, or disgrace and is done with the intent to end the struggles whereas santhara is calm, openly taken vow, meditative aimed at liberation and not an escape.
27 The Constitution of India, s 25(1)
28 Sunil Ambwani, ‘Nikhil Soni vs Union Of India & Ors. on 10 August, 2015’ [ Indian Kanoon,
n.d.] accessed 19 September 2024
29 Supra note 9
30 Ibid 27
The defense argued that Santhara is protected under Articles 2531, 2632, and 2933 of the Indian Constitution, which safeguards religious freedom and practices and cannot be declared as an offense under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code.34 The practice has been in place for over
2000 years and is deeply rooted in Jain practices and customs and places great emphasizes on
a dignified death. The respondent also argued that the right to live also includes the right to die with dignity and Santhara is one of the best ways to die with dignity. 35 The respondent claimed that the petitioner had misinterpreted the Supreme Court’s ruling in the ‘Gian Kaur V. State of Punjab’36 wherein the Supreme Court discussed the right to die with dignity, especially in situations where the person is terminally ill or is in a persistent vegetative state. The Court stated that such cases involve speeding up the natural death process. Furthermore, the respondent highlights the Hindu religion's core principles which are Dharma, Artha, Karma and Moksha. 37 When these objectives are fulfilled, one should free himself from material and worldly possessions and have a moral right to end their life.
The respondent talked about Lord Rama and Lord Mahavir who voluntarily chose to end their lives. In recent times, Shri Vinoba Bhave ended his life by undertaking a fast. Similarly, Swami Ram Krishna Param Hans and Ma Anandamayi also passed away in this manner. The folk deity of Rajasthan, Ramdeoji, took living samadhi. Every year, Indian saints willingly leave their bodies through a practice known as Samadhi Maran. There are also numerous instances of Jain monks who have ended their lives by fasting, following the practice of Santhara. The respondent further contended that the practice of Santhara cannot be seen as a withdrawal of life support as the intentions of the activities are different. The respondent also refused the petitioner’s claim of comparing Santhara to Sati as that is not a valid analogy. Sati is considered an immoral act whereas Santhara is a religious tradition.
They argue that Santhara is a voluntary religious practice within Jainism, not a form of suicide as defined under Indian law. They assert that Sallekhana, or Santhara, involves a spiritual process, free from passion and aimed at liberation from karmic bonds, distinguishing it from the emotional distress typically associated with suicide. Santhara
31 The Constitution of India, Art 25
32 The Constitution of India, Art 26
33 The Constitution of India, Art 28
34 The Indian Penal Code 1860, s 309
35 Sunil Ambwani, ‘Nikhil Soni vs Union Of India & Ors. on 10 August, 2015’ [ Indian Kanoon,
n.d.] accessed 19 September 2024
36 Gian Kaur v State of Punjab [1996] SCC (2) 648 JT
37 Hindu
does not interfere with public order, health, or morality but rather promotes spiritual growth and therefore should be protected under Article 25 of the Constitution of India.38
HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT
The Rajasthan High Court gave judgment in the favor of petitioner. 39 The court reasoned that Santhara is an essential practice in the religion of Jainism has not been established, therefore it can not be given protection under Article 25 of the Indian Constitution. After evaluating the arguments and evidence offered, the court found that the assertion that Santhara or Sallekhana is a necessary religious activity of the Jain religion had not been sufficiently shown. The court found no clear evidence in Jain texts, teachings, or historical practices to show that these rites are fundamental to the Jain religion or required for moksha (spiritual emancipation). The court also found that the respondents, who argued in favour of retaining the practice, did not give sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Santhara constituted a basic component of Jainism.
They were unable to establish that this technique was generally recognised or done by Jain followers, or that it was required for reaching spiritual objectives such as moksha. Without such proof, the court was unable to recognise Santhara as a fundamental religious practice entitled of constitutional protection. 40 The claim that without these acts, Jain supporters cannot achieve spiritual redemption or immortality is not substantiated by religious teachings or evidence. Furthermore, no evidence was shown to prove that Jain ascetics or civilians have continuously or uniformly performed Santhara or Sallekhana with the aim of achieving nirvana.
41 While it is true that the act of Santhara involves the voluntary surrender of one's body in a peaceful way for spiritual purposes and attaining, this alone does not qualify it for protection as a religious activity under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. Article 25 provides freedom of conscience and the right to freely proclaim, practise, and profess religion, although this freedom is limited by public order, morality, and health considerations. It is also subject to Article 21, which provides the right to life but does not include the right to end one's own life. While it was noted that Santhara is a voluntary act undertaken with the intention of obtaining spiritual purity rather
38 Supra note. 28
39 ‘Nikhil Soni v. Union of India and Ors.’[Manupatra, n.d.]
accessed 15 September
40 Sunil Ambwani, ‘Nikhil Soni vs Union Of India & Ors. on 10 August, 2015’ [ Indian Kanoon,
n.d.] accessed 19 September 2024
41 Supra note. 39
than out of despair, the court emphasised that this distinction does not exempt it from being considered suicide under the law. The Indian Constitution provides the right to life under Article 21, and this right does not include the right to die. 42 The court reaffirmed that the right to life does not include the right to wilfully terminate one's own life, even if the goal is related to spirituality. Spirituality does not justifies death. Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees the freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise, and propogate religion. However, this freedom is subject to legitimate limitations, such as public order, morality, and health, as well as other constitutional requirements, such as Article 21. The court ruled that no religious practice, regardless of perceived holiness or historical value, may excuse a person's suicide.
Thus, the practice of Santhara or Sallekhana cannot be protected under Article 25 since it directly violates Article 21's right to life. The court declared that Santhara does not fall under the ambit of Articles 25, 26 and 29 of the Constitution of India and therefore is not protected. Therefore, the court allowed the writ petition and ordered state officials to outlaw the practice of Santhara. It further directed that Santhara be considered as suicide, punishable under Section
309 of the Indian Penal Code43, and that anybody who encouraged this conduct would face
prosecution under Section 306 of the IPC44. The state was ordered to take urgent action to end the practice, as well as to record complaints and investigate cases of Santhara as criminal offences under the law.45
SUPREME COURT ORDER
Following the Rajasthan High Court's 2015 verdict46 that defined the Jain religious practice of Santhara to be an act of suicide, the Jain community filed an appeal with the Supreme Court. The High Court's verdict categorised Santhara as an unlawful act under Sections 309 (suicide) and 306 (abetting suicide) of the Indian Penal Code. This verdict caused heated dispute, with many Jains claiming that Santhara is a sacred religious activity that is deeply embedded in their spiritual beliefs and practices. In their Supreme Court appeal, the petitioners contended that Santhara has been practiced for generations and has tremendous religious importance. They claimed that the practice is not same as suicide, but rather a peaceful way of soul purification aimed at achieving salvation. The petitioners further argued that the High Court's ruling
42 Gian Kaur v State of Punjab [1996] SCC (2) 648 JT
43 The Indian Penal Code 1860, s 309
44 The Indian Penal Code 1860, s 306
45 Nikhil Soni v. Union of India and Ors.’[Manupatra, n.d.]
accessed 15 September 2024
46 Nikhil Soni v Union of India [2015] Cri LJ 4951
violated their fundamental right to freely practise religion, as provided by Article 25 of the Indian Constitution. Article 25 guarantees all people the freedom to profess, practise, and propagate their religion, subject to public order, morality, and health. In response to the appeal, the Supreme Court enforced a stay order in August 2015, delaying the Rajasthan High Court's decision. This stay order permitted Jain community to continue the practice of Santhara while the matter was being reviewed by the court. 47 Although the stay brought immediate respite to the Jain community, it also indicated that the case remained unresolved and would be reviewed further by the courts.
The Supreme Court would eventually have to decide whether Santhara could be reconciled with India's larger legal framework safeguarding basic rights, namely the right to life under Article 21 and the right to religious freedom under Article 25. The Supreme Court has ruled in numerous decisions that only religious behaviours deemed integral to a religion are constitutionally protected. The petitioners contend that Santhara is necessary to Jainism, while opponents say that it is not fundamental to the faith and violates the right to life, as stated in Article 21 of the Constitution. The court's final ruling on this question will be essential in settling the case. The Supreme Court has already declared, especially in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab case, that the right to life does not include the right to commit suicide.
Given the spiritual reasons of Santhara and the Jain community's beliefs about renunciation and redemption, the court must determine whether it may be distinguished from suicide. As of today, the matter is still ongoing before the Supreme Court, with no final judgement given. 48 The legal dispute continues to centre on the junction between religious freedom and the sanctity of life. The case's larger consequences extend beyond the Jain community, addressing critical issues like as human liberty, religious autonomy, and the limitations of state intrusion in religious rituals. The Supreme Court's final decision will most certainly create a precedent for how India balances religious liberties with other fundamental rights, including the right to life, and how the government navigates religious activities that may conflict with public morals, health, and the law.
SANTHARA: RELIGIOUS DEVOTION OR A CONTESTED SUICIDE?
The values of tyaga, aparigraha, and veetragta are central to Jainism, setting it apart from other faiths. Santhara, also known as Sallekhana, requires the devotee to make a deep commitment
47 ‘Supreme Court: Rajasthan High Court Order Declaring ‘Santhara’ is Illegal’ [Manupatra, n.d.]
accessed 19 September 2024
48 Ibid 45
and believe in the separation of the soul from the body. It emphasises that the bodily body is only a manifestation of accumulated karmas, and that ultimate freedom can only be attained via a life of pure faith, and wisdom. The impact of Santhara is marked by respect and celebration rather than grief. Before taking this vow, people cut off all worldly ties, creating a community atmosphere of devotion and recognition for the deceased's spiritual path. Rituals accompanying such funerals resemble celebratory festivities, complete with prayers, hymns, and recitations of religious literature, indicating love for the individual's spiritual achievements. It is critical to emphasise that Santhara cannot be launched unilaterally; it must be approved by spiritual authorities and agreed upon by family and friends, guaranteeing that the individual's approaching death is accepted.
The promise may only be taken with the person's permission and cannot be imposed on them. This is not a sudden discontinuation of nutrition; it involves a gradual renunciation of worldly desires, beginning with the abandonment of negative traits like anger and greed. 49 Food renunciation is approached deliberately and in accordance with individual health and preparedness, with an emphasis on a smooth transition rather than a forced or extreme action. The practice of Santhara represents a deep conceptual commitment to Jainism's teachings, with the objective of achieving spiritual liberation through selfdiscipline and renunciation. Santhara should not be confused with suicide, since this confusion frequently stems from a lack of understanding of the motive and purpose underlying both actions.
Critics frequently associate Santhara with suicide, yet the causes for both actions are fundamentally different. 50 Suicide is often motivated by a desire to escape life's hardships, which are frequently triggered by mental and emotional pain, such as emotions of humiliation, fear, or guilt. In contrast, Santhara is a purposeful, contemplative act performed when a person is mentally and emotionally stable. It is not an escape from life's problems, but rather acceptance of death as a natural part of existence. 51 Santhara is a practice in which a practitioner deliberately gives up
49 Nikhil Parakh, ‘SANTHARA: AN EXCEPTION OR CRIME UNDER PROVISIONS OF INDIAN PENAL
CODE, 1860’ [Indian Legal Solution Journal of Criminal and Constitutional Law, 15 July 2019] accessed 12 September 2024
50 Sushil Kumar, ‘CONCEPT OF SALLEKHNA AND SANTHARA IN JAINISM – DISTINCT FROM
SUICIDE OR ACTIVE EUTHANASIA’ [Justice Reflected, 26 August 2022] accessed 7 September 2024 51 Gautam Bhatia, ‘“Essential Religious Practices” and the Rajasthan High Court’s Santhara Judgment: Tracking the History of a Phrase’ [ Constitutional Law and Philosophy, 19 August 2015] accessed 17 September 2024
worldly pleasures and allows their body to wither away via fasting and meditation, all while retaining an inner state of calm and happiness. Suicide is when a person kills themselves violently, motivated by attachment, repulsion, or delusion whereas santhara is when someone decides to practise holy departing without such bad emotions. This crucial distinction demonstrates that Santhara cannot be regarded as suicide. Renunciation and the intentional acceptance of death are practices found in many religious traditions in the search of spiritual emancipation. In Hindu legend, Lord Rama is claimed to have intentionally drowned himself, feeling that he had accomplished his earthly obligations. Similarly, many sages and rishis give up worldly life to pursue moksha, or freedom from the cycle of birth and death.
However, some Western viewpoints regard Santhara, as a type of "suicide by starvation. " This stance is most likely rooted in a cultural and intellectual background that views life and death as black and white, considering any act of self-inflicted death—particularly one involving fasting—as a breach of divine will. Historically, Western scholars may have misunderstood Santhara, conflating it with self-destruction. They believe that the term "suicide" has become a blanket term for all forms of self-inflicted death, including those motivated by religious devotion or personal enlightenment. This confusion has continued in legal situations as well, since Indian codified law, inspired by English language, uses the term "suicide" without properly separating religious rituals such as Santhara. It does not impair public order, health, or morals.
Instead, it provides a road to peace and satisfaction for those who choose it, both individually and as a society. Santhara is not an act of aggression or despair; rather, it signifies the peak of spiritual attainment, honouring both life and death. Banning or criminalising Santhara would not only damage the Jain religion, but would also bind practitioners in the never-ending cycle of life and death from which they seek release. The spiritual foundation of of Jainism is the renunciation of karma, and the capacity to choose Santhara is critical for practitioners seeking moksha. It is critical to recognise Santhara as a sacred practice that promotes peace and fulfilment rather than damage.
CONCLUSION
It’s important to understand the claim that Santhara breaches the substance of the Constitution is misguided. It symbolises a spiritual path that is consistent with the wide values of human liberty and religious freedom entrenched in India's Constitution. Santhara is a powerful manifestation of spiritual dedication within Jainism, distinct from the idea of suicide. It represents a calm acceptance of death as part of a wider spiritual journey, which has been
practiced for centuries. 52 Understanding this distinction is critical not just for legal clarity, but also for promoting tolerance for religious diversity and the strongly held beliefs of other groups. The continuing discussion concerning Santhara reflects broader societal questions about the intersection of religious freedom, personal autonomy, and the sanctity of life. The Supreme Court's ruling will establish a precedent for the delicate balance between the right to life and religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution. 53 It will influence future litigation by establishing the extent to which individuals can practise religious traditions such as Santhara and outlining the state's role in protecting life.
This decision will establish the boundaries between personal liberty in religious expression and the state's obligation to protect individuals, setting an important route for how these fundamental liberties cross and influencing future legal interpretations of religious activities and government actions.