It took less than a minute for the Supreme Court on Monday to stay the Rajasthan High Court

order that had compared Santhara, the Jain ritual of fasting unto death, with suicide and made it
an offence punishable under the IPC. Jains were as quick to welcome the apex court order as
they had been to denounce the High Court judgment of August 10.
What was the Santhara case before the Rajasthan High Court?
In 2006, Jaipur-based lawyer Nikhil Soni filed a public interest litigation and sought directions
under Article 226 to the central and state governments to treat Santhara, the fast unto death
practised by Swetambara Jains (Digambars call it Sallekhana), as illegal and punishable under
the laws of the land. Calling it suicide and, therefore, a criminal act, the PIL also sought
prosecution of those supporting the practice for abetment to suicide. The PIL argued that death
by Santhara was not a fundamental right under Article 25 (freedom of conscience and free
profession, practice and propagation of religion), because it violated the right to life guaranteed
under Article 21. It argued that religious freedom is subject to public order, morality and health.
- See more at: http://indianexpress.com/article/explained/the-jain-religion-and-the-right-to-die-bysanthara/#sthash.iNZy0TXd.dpuf
What did the Jain community say in defence of the practice?
Representatives for the community argued that Santhara/Sallekhana is an ancient religious
practice aimed at self-purification. The vow of Santhara/Sallekhana is taken when all purposes of
life have been served, or when the body is unable to serve any purpose of life. It is not the giving
up of life, but taking death in their stride.
What did the court say in its order?
The Bench said that it was not established that Santhara or Sallekhana is an essential practice of
the Jain religion. Jain scriptures or texts dont say that moksha (salvation) can be achieved only
by Santhara/Sallekhana. According to the judges, it was one thing to argue that Santhara is not
suicide, and quite another to say that it is a permissible religious practice protected by Articles 25
and 26. The court asked the state to stop the practice in any form, and directed that any
complaint made in this regard be registered as a criminal offence in accordance with Section 309
(attempted suicide) or Section 306 (abetment to suicide) of the IPC.
How did the Jain community react to the judgment? What line have the Rajasthan, Madhya
Pradesh and central governments taken?
No government has articulated an official line, but politicians, including ministers, have criticised
the judgment. Members of the Jain community took to the streets immediately by organising
protest rallies. On August 24, the community took out massive silent rallies in several cities and
towns. In meetings held before the rallies, members of the community openly criticised the
judges, calling them ignorant and disrespectful of religious practices.
How common is the practice of Santhara/Sallekhana? Who can undertake it?
Even though Jain religious figures like monks and sadhvis, as well as lay followers, can take the
vow to undertake Santhara/Sallekhana, its not very common. Some monks and sadhvis on their
deathbeds do it, but its rare among common practitioners of Jainism. Mostly only those who are
in the last phase of their lives who are either too old or suffering from serious ailments
starve themselves to death. The vow is carried out in stages, by gradually giving up solid food,
liquid food, and finally, even water. No specific numbers are available for Santhara/Sallekhana.
Why do some people oppose it?
Human rights activists allege that its a social evil, and old people are made to undertake
Santhara/Sallekana by family members who dont want to look after them for a variety of reasons.

The petition in the High Court compared the practice with that of Sati.
Why are Jains so agitated if so few people undertake Santhara/Sallekhana?
To many Jains, death by Santhara/Sallekhana is an act of supreme renunciation and great piety,
which only the most spiritually pure undertake. While the courts judgment has been criticised as
being shallow and thoughtless, religious communities are frequently touchy about intervention in
their religious practices. The protests and appeal against the High Court order was also driven by
apprehensions that if an immediate challenge was not mounted, similar PILs may be filed in other
states.
Have other religious practices faced legal challenges earlier?
Bal Diksha, the controversial practice in which children as young as 8 years take diksha to
become Bal Munis, a role that requires them to observe a strict, regimented lifestyle, has been
challenged in the courts. Recently, a case was filed in Goa against a naked Digambar monk for
obscenity. When an amendment in the Wildlife Protection Act was proposed to ban domestic
trade of peacock feathers, the community feared that monks would be stopped from carrying
peacock feathers. The community is also against a ban on open defecation because that is the
way some monks answer natures call.
- See more at: http://indianexpress.com/article/explained/the-jain-religion-and-the-right-to-die-bysanthara/#sthash.iNZy0TXd.dpuf