Decoding The Judgement On Sallekhana Santhara Of The Rajasthan High Court - Book Summary

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided text, "Decoding The Judgement on Sallekhana Santhara of The Rajasthan High Court," by C. Devkumar Jain:

This document is an analysis and commentary on the Rajasthan High Court's judgment on August 10, 2015, regarding Santhara/Sallekhana, a Jain practice of voluntary fasting unto death. The author, Prof. Devakumar (Jain), aims to "decode" the judgment and offer insights and suggestions for the Jain community.

Background and Context:

The Jain religion, one of the oldest living religions, has a rich history and scriptural tradition supporting practices like Santhara/Sallekhana. This practice is even evidenced in ancient Tamil literature.
The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that led to the judgment was initiated in 2006 in Jaipur, reportedly influenced by an incident where a Santhara-led death was allegedly glorified.
The author notes that the practice, which was not banned even during Muslim and British rule, faced a setback with this judgment in independent India.
The Rajasthan government is commended for supporting the practice in court.

The Court's Reasoning and Key Points of the Judgment:

The High Court, in its judgment, found merit in the PIL based on several grounds, drawing parallels with other practices that were deemed illegal despite their historical or religious claims:

Not an Essential Religious Practice: The court argued that the respondents (defending Santhara) failed to produce sufficient evidence that Santhara/Sallekhana is an "essential part of the Jain religion" that could be protected under Article 25 of the Indian Constitution.
Violation of Article 21 (Right to Life): The court emphasized that the right to life under Article 21 does not include the right to die. Practices that violate public order, morality, and health, or contravene provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), cannot be protected under the guise of religious freedom. The court cited Supreme Court judgments like Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab to support the view that suicide (and by extension, voluntary fasting unto death) is not a fundamental right and Section 309 IPC (attempt to suicide) is valid.
Equating with Suicide and Other Prohibited Practices: The court drew parallels with practices like Sati and human sacrifice, which, though sometimes claimed as religious, were prohibited by law because they violated fundamental rights or public order. The petitioner argued that Santhara is a form of self-destruction akin to suicide, punishable under Sections 309 and 306 IPC.
Lack of Evidence for Historical Practice: The court stated there was no material evidence showing Santhara/Sallekhana was practiced prior to or after the Constitution's promulgation in a way that would necessitate protection under Article 25.
Glorification and Public Spectacle: The PIL highlighted instances where Santhara deaths were publicized and the deceased was glorified, turning homes into pilgrimage sites. The court viewed this as a potential aspect that could fall outside the protection of religious freedom, especially if it implied a lack of genuine consent or was driven by social pressure or a desire for status. The case of Vimla Jain, whose Santhara was widely publicized, is mentioned as a catalyst.
No Right to Take One's Own Life: The court reiterated that the Constitution does not grant the right to take one's own life, nor can this be included as an essential religious practice under Article 25. Even voluntary acts of self-harm cannot be permitted as part of religious practice.
Abuse and Coercion: The petitioner's arguments included claims that individuals undertaking Santhara might be coerced, tied down, or influenced by religious fanaticism, which the court considered as potential violations of human dignity and the right to life.

Arguments Presented by the Respondents (Defending Santhara):

The respondents, including the Jain community and its advocates, presented strong arguments to defend Santhara/Sallekhana:

Not Suicide, but Spiritual Discipline: They argued that Santhara is not suicide but a deliberate, well-considered spiritual discipline aimed at purifying the soul and shedding accumulated karmas to attain liberation (Moksha) or a better rebirth. It's about facing death with equanimity (Samadhi Maran).
Historical and Scriptural Basis: They presented extensive evidence from Jain scriptures, historical records, and scholarly works to demonstrate the practice's antiquity and its integral role in Jainism, tracing it back to Lord Rsabhadeva.
Distinction from Suicide: They meticulously outlined the psychological and physical differences between suicide (driven by stress, disgrace, or escape) and Santhara (undertaken with detachment, equanimity, and spiritual intent). They argued that the former involves passion, while the latter is free from it.
Right to Die with Dignity: Citing aspects of the Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug case, they suggested that the right to life includes the right to a dignified end when natural death is imminent, and Santhara could be viewed in this light.
Cultural Right: They argued that Santhara is a part of Jain culture and heritage, protected under Articles 25, 26, and 29 of the Constitution, which safeguard religious freedom and the right of minority communities to conserve their culture.
No Violation of Public Order, Morality, or Health: They contended that Santhara, when practiced correctly, does not violate public order, morality, or health.
Ancient Practice Not Banned: They highlighted that the practice was never banned by previous rulers, indicating its acceptance within societal norms.
Comparison to Other Spiritual Practices: They drew parallels with similar practices like Prayopavesa in Hinduism and the fasting by spiritual leaders like Vinoba Bhave and Swami Ramakrishna Paramhans, suggesting it's not unique to Jainism.

Author's Analysis and Suggestions for the Jain Community:

Prof. Devakumar Jain offers critical analysis and actionable suggestions:

Need for Clear Definition and Scope: The author stresses the importance of clearly enunciating the definition and scope of Santhara/Sallekhana, clarifying that it's not solely "fast unto death" or "prolonged fasting" and that safety exit options (guidance from a Guru, self-assessment) are crucial.
Proactive Community Action: He urges the Jain community to unite and take proactive steps.
Developing Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs): A key suggestion is for Jain sanghs (organizations) to volunteer for accreditation with ISO and develop standardized SOPs for Santhara. These could be presented to the judiciary and government.
Compiling Historical and Scholarly Evidence: The author advocates for a priority compilation of all historical, scriptural, and epigraphical evidence, and the publication of scholarly works, potentially involving international scholars.
Addressing Court's Concerns: He suggests that the community must introspect about instances that might contradict the spirit of Santhara (like glorification) and counter allegations of coercion or social climbing.
Legal Strategy: The author implies the need for a strategic approach in any future legal battles, possibly including a review petition.

Conclusion of the Judgment:

The judgment allowed the writ petition, directing state authorities to stop the practice of Santhara/Sallekhana, treat it as suicide punishable under Sections 309 and 306 IPC, and register all complaints as criminal cases for investigation.

Overall Tone:

The document is a detailed and critical examination of a landmark legal decision affecting a religious practice. While acknowledging the court's reliance on legal precedents and constitutional principles, it also highlights the author's concern for the Jain community's right to practice its traditions and offers a roadmap for future engagement. The author emphasizes the need for the Jain community to be organized, informed, and proactive in preserving its heritage.