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.

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.

Santhara: Glorified suicide or

essential practice?
Glorified suicide or essential practice? Family pressure or
personal choice? Cruel end or dignified ending? With the
Jain practice of santhara caught in legal row, Manasi
Phadke & Tanushree Venatraman try to find out.
Badni Devi Daga was surviving on just teaspoons of water for more than a month. (Source:
Express photo by Rohit Jain Paras)

Pradhuman Jain was only four, but he remembers standing in the corner of a room as his 76-
year-old grandmother Gindhodi Devi Jain lay dying, surrounded by religious texts. He recalls
walking up to her coyly, and she putting her hand on his head to bless him. He also
remembers the steady trickle of people coming to visit her over her last few days, at their
house in Delhis Karol Bagh area. Woh prabhu ka dhyaan kar rahi hain (She is in prayer),
my mother would tell me, says Jain, now 45.

Gindhodi Devis funeral procession was accompanied by music and her pyre was made of
sandalwood. No one shed a tear.

Jain would realise much later what he had witnessed between January 29 and February 6,
1971, when Gindhodi finally passed away.

Like how animals sense an earthquake, death sends a signal to the person before it actually
comes. That was my grandmothers cue. Her parents had also taken santhara. And I too wish
to go the same way, says Jain, who is associated with the National Commission for Minority
Educational Institutions.

But is this choice of death actually as black and white? That is now a matter of debate since
the Rajasthan High Court last month held santhara illegal, making it punishable under
Sections 306 (abetment of suicide) and 309 (attempted suicide) of the IPC, terming it
equivalent to suicide. The bench also held that santhara was not an essential religious
practice of Jain religion.

As Jains, who make up 0.4 per cent of the population according to the 2011 Census, held
protests across the country, the Supreme Court stayed the high court order.

Santhara, also called Pandit-maran, Sallekhana and Sakham-maran, is believed to have

been practised since the foundation of Jainism and finds mention in its agams (religious
texts). As per the Jain Yuva Sangh, the Pratikramana Sutra in Shravaka Anuvrata (the code of
conduct for Jains) clearly explains santhara, saying that when all purposes of life have been
served, or when the body is unable to serve any more purpose, a person can opt for it.

That itself flows from the Jain belief that anything they do can disturb the natural ecology.
Therefore, eating a mango weighs lesser on ones karma than eating a strawberry, which has
more seeds, and hence possibilities of life. Through santhara, a person is expected to cause
minimum disturbance to others. He or she is presumed to be voluntarily shunning all of lifes
temptations food, water, emotions, bonds after instinctively knowing death was
imminent.

Sallekhana is the soul of Jainism, says Jaipur-based Munishri 108 Praman Sagarji Maharaj
(the numbering being a gradation for Jain monks). In its absence, a Jain sadhaks
(practitioners) sadhna is not successful. Just like a student whose year-long studies come to a
naught if he does not go to the classroom, a Jain who practises Jainism fails if he cant
undertake sallekhana.

Mahesh Pagariya, the national president of the youth wing of the Delhi-based Jain
Conference, estimates that at least 1,500 people have undertaken sallekhana in the last 10
years in Mumbai and Pune alone. Jain guru Parampujya Acharya Shree Kulchandra Suriji
(KC) Maharaj, based in Mumbai, puts the number at more than 250 people every year.

The numbers have certainly dwindled, says a disciple of the guru, but that is because we
know this is the kalyug. Peoples leaning towards religion is on the decline.
Jayant Jobalia, vice-president of the Shree Vardhaman Sthanakvasi Jain Sangh, Borivali West
(Mumbai), likens santhara to Hindu saints attaining samadhi. All our tirthankars left this
world undertaking santhara. It is also a very scientific process where the body is crushed in a
gradual manner.

To compare it with suicide is completely wrong, says Kanak Parmar, the general secretary of
the Mumbai-based Jain Shakti Foundation. Suicide results from depression, anger,
loneliness. People avoid talking about it. Santhara on the other hand is observed amid
festivity. The person concerned is treated akin to god. The house becomes a teerthasthan
(place of pilgrimage).

Calling the Rajasthan judgment an assault on our culture, Vivek Sagar, a Bhopal-based Jain
monk, says, If sallekhana is suicide, then samadhi jal, parvat and other forms practised by
Vaishnavites is also suicide. Several political leaders undertake fast unto death They
should also be booked.

Justice (retd) P C Jain of the Rajasthan High Court drafted the Shwetambar sects stand in the
high court arguing in favour of santhara. Jain, who had been on the bench in the Deorala sati
case and co-authored the order directing the government to ensure there was no sati
glorification, calls the other comparison between sati and santhara as similarly devoid
of logic.

Rather than an age-old custom, sati was a recent innovation, born of material interests, Jain
ruled in the Deorala case. That, he notes, makes it quite different from santhara.

The learned (high) courts order is flawed in fact and law, the retired judge says. The
petitioner did not say anything about the use of force or torture but the court cited these.

The Shwetambar sect also argued that santhara was not a way to attain moksha (liberation)
and could be undertaken only in three cases terminal illness or imminent death, famine or
non-availability of food, and old age with loss of faculties.

Santhara is only a matter of dying with dignity, says P C Jain. And you cant undertake
suicide and then decide to withdraw (unlike in santhara). There are several examples where
people have withdrawn, the most famous being Muni Vidyanand, a Digambar saint who
withdrew after six years in santhara, during which he gradually gave up food, saying his body
was not ready yet.

Jain sees a hangover of Christian morality in the debate. Suicide was an abhorrent practice
in England at the time many of Indias laws were framed. The person who committed
suicide lost property rights and was not even allowed to be buried in the graveyard. But now
even the UK and US have decriminalised suicide, he says.

Other religions show how to live, we show how beautiful it is to die, says Vijay Bhatevara
of Pune, whose 58-year-old wife Sunanda took santhara and passed away within hours on
August 23. In her will, she expressed her wish to donate her body.

Diagnosed with cancer in 2010, Sunanda was in unbelievable pain, says son Sujit. My
mother had a right to die with dignity. Still we consulted several doctors. Finally family
members too agreed that my mother should be able to take santhara. Vijay is happy that his
wife could give her body for research.

But the fact that santhara is taken up mostly by those old and ailing, and particularly women,
has left it open to other accusations. Human rights activists allege old people are made to
undertake santhara by relatives who dont want to look after them.

Santhara has essentially turned into socially acceptable suicide, says Manchand Khandela,
general secretary of the Akhil Bharatiya Jain Jagriti Parishad. The person who undertakes it
is under immense pressure. He or she is sworn into it by a great saint and that is a
commitment hard to break. The person is treated like a demi-god; people come for their
darshan.

Just because santhara is based on non-violence, is it appropriate to let a person die, asks
Kamayani Bali Mahabal, a Mumbai-based lawyer. Why are protesters on hunger strike
arrested and force-fed then? The government is not allowing Irom Sharmila to die as her
santhara is political? she says.

Agreeing with Khandela, she adds, How voluntary can a decision of santhara be? It is
taken under the threat of being socially ostracised if they have a second thought.

While family members contest this, in practice, it is mostly people on the verge of death who
opt for the vow, in the hope of giving their death meaning.

Nikhil Soni, on whose petition the Rajasthan High Court held santhara illegal, comes from
Churu, the Rajasthan district that once saw one of the highest number of santhara cases in the
country. He claims he approached the court after hearing about the case of Bimla Devi
Bhansali, who was allegedly coerced into santhara by her family and whose cries for help
were ignored.

Badamiben Mehta was similarly old, ailing and a woman. A resident of Kalbadevi in
Mumbai, the 73-year-old had been bedridden for over a year, receiving treatment for
tuberculosis, before doctors gave up hope.

That was when she told me she wanted to take santhara, says son Kamal Mehta. We went
to our religious preacher, who explained the concept in detail. Badamiben died within 40
hours of starting santhara.

Jaipur-based Man Singh Mehta, whose wife Kamla Devi undertook santhara, says, We Jains
are not poor. You think we dont have enough food or water in our homes, that we would
force people into death?

Kamla Devi suffered from cancer and when doctors said they couldnt help her anymore, she
was brought home. She began her santhara on the night of June 5, 2006, and was dead within
seven hours. Undertaking santhara was her last wish, stresses Mehta.
Terming the high court order ill-informed, he adds, Our saints walk miles without shoes.
Tomorrow the court will declare that too as cruelty and ban it.

When Megha Kotharis 80-year-old father Nemichand Katariya passed away on February 26
this year, his last words were Michchhami Dukkadam, an ancient Jain phrase in Prakrit
meaning, If I have caused you offence in any way, in thought, word or deed, then I seek your
forgiveness.

Her father, who lived with her brother near the Fergusson College road in Pune, had had a
lively routine till cancer struck last year, Megha says. He barely took one dose of
chemotherapy and then simply refused treatment. From December last year he took
homeopathy pills and survived on a basic diet. The pain was there but his constant refrain was
to take santhara. We all urged him to continue with the cancer treatment. But it was like a
calling from within.

Wife Suryamala was supportive. My husband had decided to take the vow. How could I be
an obstacle? the 78-year-old says.

My father was asked often if he wanted to change his mind, have food. But not once did he
even ask for water, Megha says.

Manikchand Lodha, 90, Pune, took up santhara the same day as the Rajasthan High Court
order. My father-in-law was bedridden for two-and-a-half years but he was so determined to
take santhara that he stopped medicines, says daughter-in-law Sunita.

Family members admit it was distressing to see the frail old businessman give up, one by one,
tea, television, interaction with family, and finally the little bit of milk and juice he took. We
tried to dissuade him, but he knew his mind, says Sumitlal.

Shekhar Hattangadi, whose documentary Santhara: A Challenge to Indian Secularism? has

won awards at film festivals, says a basic difference lies at the centre of the row. We follow
the West in legal and economic principles, while our faith is very similar to what is followed
in the East, he says. In Western philosophy, the Catholics consider the body to be a temple,
while the Jains consider the human body to be a prison of the same temple. The conflict
arises there itself.

I answer this from Wikipedia :

Santhara (also Sallekhana, Samadhi-marana, Samnyasa-marana), is the Jain(Jainism)
practice of voluntary and systematic fasting to death. Jain texts say it is the ultimate route to
attaining moksha and breaking free from the whirlpool of life and death.The vow of Santhara
is taken when one feels that one's life has served its purpose. The purpose is to purge old
karmas and prevent the creation of new ones.

The Rationale behind it

The rationale behind Sallekhana comes from the Jain belief in karma, rebirth,
asceticism and spiritual purification.

Jainism believes that each and every action (eating included) may or may not become karma.
Jains are strictly vegetarian, but a tree, even if it has only one sense, has life, and hence taking
away a piece of it (vegetable, fruit, leaf) hurts itthereby adding a negative karma to all who
encourage this process. Besides, there may be living organisms surviving in that
fruit/vegetable/leaf that one eats. So by eating, one hurts the tree/plant and also possibly kills
organisms living in it. In fact, since water also has microscopic organisms, even drinking
water adds to one's karma.

The basic idea in different kinds of Jain fasting is to acquire a lowest possible negative
karma and purify oneself in the process. Santhara, in this sense, is the best way to
purification.

Jains claim that Santhara or Sallekhana is the most ideal, peaceful, and satisfying form of
death. Jains acknowledge the suffering one endures while in the process of starving but
rationalize it by stating that it allows for a better understanding of the inherently painful and
flawed nature of earthly http://existence.To further explain the rationale, Jains claim moral
superiority in that they stop sustaining their own life at the cost of the other life forms they
might otherwise consume. The supreme goal is to minimize the damage one does to their
environment. Asceticism is revered and practicing ascetics are worshipped. Jainism teaches
that the every living creature has an immortal soul called a jiva, which has consciousness and
intelligence and which ideally should be able to ascend to the summit of the universe and
achieve omniscience. However it is karma that prevents the immaterial soul from achieving
liberation.

It is important to note that the concept of karma in Jain theology is very different from
the understanding of karma in Hinduism and western popular culture.

In Hinduism karma literally translates as "deed" or "act", representing a cosmic

understanding of cause and effect, the actions and reactions that governs all life. Karma is not
understood as fate, rather, in Hinduism man acts with free will creating his own destiny.
According to the Vedas, if man sows goodness, he will reap goodness; if he sows evil, he will
reap evil. This understanding is not terribly dissimilar from the western popular culture
interpretation of what goes around comes around, and a generalized belief that good deeds
are rewarded and bad deeds are punished.

However, for Jains karma is a much more sophisticated and developed belief system. The
physical body is viewed as a prison for the soul and it is believed that karma is
responsible for keeping the soul trapped within the body. Karma is understood to be an
invisible supernatural substance composed of very fine particles that permeate the soul
determining what physical form the soul will take. It is the accumulation of karma that
determines the form in which a soul is reincarnated. The deliverance of the soul from karma
is achieved through strict asceticism whereby the soul hinders the karmas, or tiny particles of
matter, from infusing the soul and purges the old karmas before they are realized in the next
life.[3]

Questions regarding legality

Like most Dharmic religious traditions, Jainism considers suicide a wrong that only
retains the karma from the current life and does not allow escape from the cycle of
births and rebirths.Supporters of the practice believe that Santhara cannot be considered
suicide, but rather something one does with full knowledge and intent, while suicide is
viewed as emotional and hasty. Due to the prolonged nature of Santhara, the individual is
given ample time to reflect on his or her life. Suicide involves an intentional act of harm
against oneself with a known outcome that negatively affects those left behind. With
Sallekhana, death is welcomed through a peaceful, tranquil process providing peace of mind
for everyone involved.[4]

Because people who take the vow of Sallekhana are elevated to a position of reverence,
admiration and worship, it is difficult to parse out the individuals true intentions in
taking the vow of Sallekhana.
For some, Sallekhana is probably motivated by belief alone. For others, their decision to end
their life may be motivated by reasons ranging from the economic hardship to the desire for
redemption for some bad act. Regardless of the motives, speaking out against Sallekhana is
rare and it is commonly understood in the Jain community that preventing or interrupting
Sallekhana invites social ostracism. Statistically Sallekhana is undertaken by more women
than men and some have argued that in this way Sallekhana serves as a means of coercing
widows and elderly relatives into taking their own lives.

Controversy:

Of late, Santhara has been embroiled in controversy, with critics equating the practice with
suicide. But there are differing legal opinions on this. While advocate Sanjay Jain says that
Articles 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution protect all religious practices, unless otherwise
prohibited by law, Mahesh Jethmalani argues that any practice that eventually leads to death
is attempted suicide.

Santhara is the - "Art of Dying".

When the seeker looses the capability of carrying its basic needs by itself, and
thus becomes dependent on others, then this technique is used to transcend the
body and move on, to the new life.

Why is it not a Suicide:

Some reasons are as under:

1- Unlike suicide, its not spontaneous. On the contrary, its a long process and
may take as many as 30+ days. A psychologist will know that its not possible to
remain suicidal simultaneously for such long periods of time.

2- It's not performed because of any depression or loss of hope.

3- It's a yogic technique (Tapas) as it requires consistency of mind for a long

period of time.

4- Just as when a garment becomes old and unusable; a person replaces it with a
new. Similarly, its a yogic technique, which is used to change our current old and
shattered bodies with new and better vehicles.
5- It's forbidden to be used when the person is young and capable, so that it may
not be used as an excuse to end ones life, or commit suicide.

Why is it not euthanasia:

Santhara is a complete opposite of euthanasia.

Euthanasia is a process of deliberately ending the life to relieve someone from

pain or suffering. It requires use of medicines that makes a person unconscious
and then gradually kills him in this unconsciousness.

Santhara on the contrary is the process of raising ones awareness to

unparalleled heights so one may consciously experience ones own death.

It's not performed to relieve oneself of ones pains or suffering. In fact, this
process increases the suffering as once commenced, the seeker stops taking
even the basic medicines or pain-killers.

It's the greatest Tapas/austerity a human is capable of performing. It's the

greatest meditation, the greatest single leap a seeker can make on his journey to
Godhood. To understand this concept in true sense of the word, one will need to
understand Shraman Theology. Only then, its true meaning, and the science and
logic behind this process can be fully understood.

Sallekhana
Sallekhan (also Santhara, Samadhi-marana, Sanyasana-marana) is the last vow
prescribed by the Jain ethical code of conduct.[note 1] The vow of sallekhan is observed by the
Jain ascetics and lay votaries at the end of their life by gradually reducing the intake of food
and liquids.[1][2][3] Sallekhan is allowed when normal life according to religion is not possible
due to old age, incurable disease or when a person is nearing his end.[3][4] It is a highly
respected practice among the members of the Jain community.[5] According to Jain texts,
sallekhan leads to ahims (non-violence or non-injury), as a person observing sallekhan
subjugates the passions, which are the root cause of hims (injury or violence).[6] In 2015,
Rajasthan High Court banned the practice calling it suicide. On 31 August 2015, Supreme
Court of India stayed the decision of Rajasthan High Court and lifted the ban on sallekhana.[7]

Overview[edit]
See also: Ethics of Jainism

Sallekhan is made up from two words sal (meaning 'properly') and lekhana, which means to
thin out. Properly thinning out of the passions and the body is sallekhan.[8] Sallekhan is
prescribed both for the householders (rvakas) and the ascetics.[9] In Jainism, both ascetics
and householders have to follow five fundamental vows (vratas). Ascetics must observe
complete abstinence and their vows are thus called Mahavratas (major vows). The vows of
the laity (who observe partial abstinence) are called anuvratas (minor vows).[10] Jain ethical
code also prescribe seven supplementary vows, which include three gua vratas and four
ik vratas.[11]

Head Vow Meaning

Not to hurt any living being by actions and
1. Ahims
thoughts
2. Satya Not to lie or speak what is not commendable.[12]
Five vows 3. Asteya Not to take anything if not given.[13]
4. Brahmacharya Chastity / Celibacy in action, words & thoughts
5. Aparigraha (Non-
Detachment from material property.
possession)
Restriction on movement with regard to
6. Digvrata
directions.
Gua vratas[14] Vow of limiting consumable and non-
7. Bhogopabhogaparimana
Merit vows consumable things
Refraining from harmful occupations and
8. Anartha-dandaviramana
activities (purposeless sins).
9. Samayika Vow to meditate and concentrate periodically.
ik vratas[15] Limiting movement to certain places for a fixed
10.Desavrata
[14]
period of time.[16]
Disciplinary 11.Prosadhopavsa Fasting at regular intervals.
vows Vow of offering food to the ascetic and needy
12.Atihti samvibhag
people.

An ascetic or householder who has observed all the vows prescribed to shed the karmas,
takes the vow of sallekhan at the end of his life.[15] According to the Jain text, Purushartha
Siddhyupaya, "sallekhan enable a householder to carry with him his wealth of piety".[17]
Sallekhan is treated as a supplementary to the twelve vows taken by Jains. However, some
Jain Acharyas such as Kundakunda, Devasena, Padmanandin and Vasunandin have included
it under the last vow, ik-vrata.[18]

The vow of sallekhan is often explained with a famous analogy:[19]

A merchant stores commodities for sale and stores th

in a righteous manner without violating his vows. In

Sallekhan is divided into two:[21]

Kashaya sallekhan (slenderising of passions) or abhayantra (internal)

Kaya sallekhan (slenderising the body) or bhya (external)

Procedure[edit]

Sallekhan as expounded in the famous Jain text, Ratna Karanda Sravakachara

According to Tattvartha Sutra (a compendium of Jain principles): "A householder willingly

or voluntary adopts Sallekhan when death is very near."[22][23] Observance of the vow of
sallekhan starts much before the approach of death. A householder persistently meditate on
the verse: "I shall certainly, at the approach of death, observe sallekhan in the proper
manner."[24] The duration of the practice could be up to twelve years or more.[25] Sixth part of
the Jain text, Ratnakaranda rvakcra is on sallekhan and its procedure.[26]

Jain texts mention five transgressions of the vow of sallekhan:[23][27]-

desire to live

desire to die

recollection of affection for friends

recollection of the pleasures enjoyed

longing for the enjoyment of pleasures in future

The person observing sallekhan does not wish to die nor he is aspiring to live in a state of
inability where he/ she can't undertake his/ her own chores. Due to the prolonged nature of
sallekhan, the individual is given ample time to reflect on his or her life. The purpose is to
purge old karmas and prevent the creation of new ones.[28] The vow of Sallekhana can not be
taken by a lay person on his own without being permitted by a monk.[29]

In Practice[edit]
Sallekhana place for the monks at Udayagiri hills.
See also: Doddahundi nishidhi inscription

According to a survey conducted in 2006, on an average 200 Jains practice sallekhan until
death each year in India.[30] Statistically, Sallekhan is undertaken both by men and women of
all economic classes and among the educationally forward Jains. Statistically it is done by
more women than men. It has been argued that Sallekhana serves as a means of coercing
widows and elderly relatives into taking their own lives,[31] but that is a rare case. In both the
writings of Jain scriptures and the general views of many followers of Jainism, due to the
degree of self-actualisation and spiritual strength required by those who undertake the ritual,
Sallekhana is considered to be a display of utmost piety, purification and expiation.[32] In
1999, Acharya Vidyanand, a prominent Digambara monk took a twelve year long vow of
sallekhan.[33]

Historical examples[edit]

Doddahundi nishidhi inscription was raised in honor of Western Ganga Dynasty King
Nitimarga I in 869 C.E. The king was a devout Jain who observed the vow of Sallekhan.
These memorial stones (nishidhi) were raised in medieval India to honor noted Jains who
took Sallekhan.
A sallekhan inscription at Shravanbelgola. Inscription (130) is in characters of the 7th
century.

In around 300 BC, Chandragupta Maurya (founder of the Maurya Empire) undertook
Sallekhan atop Chandragiri Hill, ravan a Bel gol ,aKarnataka.[34][35][36] Chandragupta basadi
at Shravanabelagola (a chief seat of the Jains) marks the place where the saint Chandragupta
died.[37] Acharya Shantisagar, a highly revered Digambara monk of the modern India took
Sallekana on 18 August 1955 because of inability to walk without help and weak eye-sight.[38]
[39]
He died on 18 September 1955.[40]

Misconceptions[edit]
Jain texts make a clear distinction between the sallekhan vow and suicide.[41] According to
Jain text, Purus rthasiddhyupya:

"When death is imminent, the vow of sallekhan is observed by progressively slenderizing

the body and the passions. Since the person observing sallekhan is devoid of all passions
like attachment, it is not suicide.

Pururthasiddhyupya (117)[24]

In the practice of Sallekhan, it is viewed that death is "welcomed" through a peaceful,

tranquil process that provides peace of mind and sufficient closure for the adherent, their
family and/or community.[42]

In both the writings of Jain Agamas and the general views of many followers of Jainism, due
to the degree of self-actualisation and spiritual strength required by those who undertake the
ritual, Sallekhan is considered to be a display of utmost piety, purification and expiation.[43]

In his book, Sallekhan is Not Suicide, Justice T. K. Tukol wrote:[44]

My studies of Jurisprudence, the Indian Penal Code and of criminal cases decided by me had
convinced that the vow of Sallekhan as propounded in the Jaina scriptures is not suicide.
According to Champat Rai Jain, "The true idea of sallekhan is only this that when death
does appear at last, one should know how to die, that is, one should die like a monk, not like a
beast, bellowing and panting and making vain efforts to avoid, the unavoidable."[45][46]

According to advocate, Suhrith parthasarathy, "Sallekhan is not an exercise in trying to

achieve an unnatural death, but is rather a practice intrinsic to a persons ethical choice to live
with dignity until death".[47]

Legality[edit]
See also: Legal status of Jainism as a distinct religion in India

In India, suicide remains a crime.[48] The police are allowed to arrest people attempting a
hunger strike where there is danger, and to force-feed the person and charge them.[48]

In 2006, human rights activist Nikhil Soni and his lawyer Madhav Mishra filed a Public
Interest Litigation with the Rajasthan High Court. The PIL claimed that Sallekhan should be
considered to be suicide under the Indian legal statute. They argued that Article 21 of the
Indian constitution only guarantees the right to life, but not to death.[48] The petition extends
to those who facilitate individuals taking the vow of with aiding and abetting an act of
suicide. In response, the Jain community argued that it is a violation of the Indian
Constitutions guarantee of religious freedom.[49] It was argued that Sallekhan serves as a
means of coercing widows and elderly relatives into taking their own lives.[50]

This landmark case sparked debate in India, where national bioethical guidelines have been in
place since 1980.[51]

In August 2015, the Rajasthan High Court stated that the practice is not an essential tenet of
Jainism and banned the practice making it punishable under section 306 and 309 (Abetment
of Suicide) of the Indian Penal Code.[52]

On 24 August 2015, members of the Jain community held a peaceful nationwide protest
against the ban on Santhara.[53] Protests were held in various states like Rajasthan, Gujarat,
Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Delhi etc.[54] Silent march were carried out in various cities.[55]

On 31 August 2015, Supreme Court of India stayed the decision of Rajasthan High Court and
lifted the ban on santhara.[7] The Special Leave Petition brought before the Supreme Court of
India was filed by Akhil Bharat Varshiya Digambar Jain Parishad.[56][57] Supreme court
considered Santhara as a component of non-violence ('ahimsa').

Santhara Debate
Nov 27, 2015

Background

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.

What is Santhara

Santhara (also Sallekhana, Santhara, Samadhi-marana, Samnyasa-

marana),is Jain religious ritual of voluntary death by fasting. Supporters
of the practice believe that Santhara cannot be considered suicide, but
rather something one does with full knowledge and intent, while suicide
is viewed as emotional and hasty. Due to the prolonged nature of
Santhara, the individual is given ample time to reflect on his or her life.
The vow of Santhara is taken when one feels that one's life has served
its purpose. The purpose is to purge old karmas and prevent the creation
of new ones. There exist a similar Hindu practice known as Prayopavesa.

According to the Press Trust of India, on average 240 Jains practice

Santhara until death each year in India.

Constitutional Rationale and Judgement of High Court

ARTICLE 25 of the Constitution of India guarantees that all persons are

equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess,
practise and propagate religion, but it subjects this guarantee to public
order, morality and health and to other fundamental rights guaranteed by
the Constitution. Article 25(2)(a) makes it clear that this guarantee shall
not affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the state from
making any law regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political
or other secular activity that may be associated with a religious practice.

Court was faced with the dilemma of having to resolve an apparent

tension between this guarantee and two provisions of the Indian Penal
Code (IPC), namely, Sections 306 and 309, which criminalise abetment to
suicide and attempt to suicide respectively. The Bench resolved this by
directing the State government to stop the practice of Santhara and to
treat it as suicide punishable under Section 309 of the IPC and its
abetment punishable under Section 306 of the IPC.

Argument of Nikhil Soni

 Right under article 25 should be subjected to public order, morality and
health and to the other provisions of Part III of the Constitution, which
includes Article 21 guaranteeing the right to life. A practice, however
ancient it might be to a particular religion, could not be allowed to violate
the right to life of an individual.

A voluntary fast until death was an act of self-destruction, which

amounted to suicide, which is a criminal offence and is punishable under
Section 309 of the IPC with simple imprisonment for a term up to one
year or with fine or with both

The abetment of suicide is also punishable under Section 306 of the IPC
with imprisonment up to 10 years and also a fine.

Argument of Jain Community

Santhara was an exercise of self-purification and a popular religious

practice through the history of Jainism. It was a voluntary vow with
meditation accompanied by the person abstaining from food, water
and every kind of nourishment to the body until the end of his or
her life; it was not giving up life, but very much taking death in its
own stride

Santhara involved the right to die with dignity as a part of life with
dignity when death was imminent and the process of natural death
had commenced

Jain philosophy believes that we have been given a human birth

only to accumulate salvation, and practicing Santhara is a way of
burning away one's sins

Jains are particularly offended by the comparisons drawn between

Santhara, suicide and euthanasia. People commit suicide when they
are fed up with the world or are deeply disturbed mentally. But
taking Santhara required tremendous inner strength. It is about
uniting with ones antaraatma [inner soul], it is not about dying

Reasoning of High Court:

High Court dealt with only the question as to whether the practice of
Santhara was an essential practice of the Jain religion so as to be eligible
for protection under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.

A practice might be religious but not an essential and integral part of

practice of that religion and, therefore, was not protected by Article 25
 Conclusion of court wast it had not been established that Santhara was
an essential religious practice of the Jain religion. We do not find that in
any of the scriptures, preachings, articles or the practices followed by the
Jain ascetics, the Santhara or Sallekhana has been treated as an essential
religious practice, nor is necessarily required for the pursuit of immortality
or moksha. There is no such preaching in the religious scriptures of the
Jain religion or in the texts written by the revered Jain Munis that the
Santhara or Sallekhana is the only method, without which the moksha is
not attainable. There is no material whatsoever to show that this practice
was accepted by most of the ascetics or persons following the Jain religion
in attaining the nirvana or moksha,

Fault with the Judgement of High Court

In 1984, the Supreme Court held in Jagadishwaranand vs Police

Commissioner, Calcutta, that the tandava dance was not an essential
practice of Ananda Margis, recognised by the court as a religious
denomination. The reason given by the court was that both the
denomination and the practice were recent phenomena. In Nikhil Soni,
the bench does not refer to this case at all, raising doubts as to whether it
avoided any reference because the Supreme Courts conclusion in that
case supports the argument that Santhara may be an essential practice of
Jainism because it dates back to antiquity.

Sallekhana is different because it is not usually associated with two

evils most religions inflict: the subordination of women and outright
coercion. Sallekhana, unlike sati, with which silly comparisons are drawn,
has not historically been associated with the subordination of women.
Both men and women do it. It is voluntary, though it can be debated
whether the social attraction of being remembered as an adept is a kind
of coercive pressure. In some renditions of the practice, having once
taken a vow, the community censure on withdrawing was significant.
Equally, in the regulation by Jain monks, the vows were often graded,
gradually escalating, so that the process could be stopped if
circumstances changed. Yes, there is in some cases the risk of social
pressure, but the tradition itself had regulatory answers to compensate
for that. But let us face it: If social pressure alone were the test of
illegitimacy of a practice, almost all social institutions would be declared
invalid, beginning with marriage. Where is the bright line between choice
and pressure?

Current Position

Supreme Court on stayed 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.
- See more at: http://www.drishtiias.com/upsc-exam-gs-resources-Santhara-
Debate#sthash.9rQdF2RU.dpuf

The Supreme Court (SC) of India has stayed Rajasthan High Courts order declaring
Santhara, a Jain ritual of voluntary and systematic fasting to death illegal.

The stay order was given by SC Bench comprising Chief Justice of India H.L. Dattu and
Justice Amitava Roy.

What is Santhara?

Santhara is a religious custom of Jain religion that embraces voluntary death in order to purge
oneself of bad karma and attain moksha. The practitioners of this custom take an oath to
stop eating until they die of starvation. This oath is taken in consultation with a guru and
follows the most detailed of procedures.

Background

Earlier in August 2015, Rajasthan High Court had banned the practice of Santhara by
declaring it as a criminal offence and mentioning it as illegal in the eyes of law.

The High Court in its ruling had made this religious practice a punishable offence under
section 306 (abetment of suicide) and Section 309 (attempt to commit suicide) of the Indian
Penal Code (IPC).

Constitutional Validity

Article 25: The Rajasthan High Court in its ruling had mentioned that as per Article
25, religious liberty and freedom is only limited to the scope of essential religious
practices of particular religion. So practice of Santhara is not essential religious
practice of Jainism.

Article 21: The Rajasthan High Court also mentioned that Protection of life and
personal liberty does not include Right to die. So it is illegal from this point of view.

The ruling of High Court was based on public interest litigation (PIL) filed by advocate and
human rights activist Nikhil Soni to ban this centuries old Jain ritual claiming it as social evil
and should be considered as suicide.

Jain Communitys Viewpoint

Jain community clearly mentioned that the practice of Santhara is an integral part of Jainism
and has been mentioned in religious texts. It is also an intrinsic practice to a persons ethical
choice to live with dignity until death and not an exercise in trying to achieve an unnatural
death.
 Santhara is a centuries old jain practice that encompasses voluntary fasting to death.
Jainism believe that regular activities like eating adds a negative karma and santhara
is perceived as best way of purification by negating the negative karma acquired
throughout life.

The recent Rajsthan HC verdict has equated this practice as suicide. This has
embroiled santhara in controversy. Suicide is often a result of emotional and hasty
decision and can not be considered ethical.Though both ultimately causes death, they
carry huge difference as practice is done in systematic way with full consciousness.
For a culture that believes in rebirth, it certainly can not be suicide. Further it is
performed as an ethical act. For them it is ultimate route to attain moksha.

However, Such religious practices often hampers with ethics of society as whole
taking in view following points.

1) The practice can also be a mean to overcome economic hardships and other grave
problems of life.It is very difficult to parse out the real intention behind one's vow of
sallekhana or santara.

2) Statistically more women perform it than men that forces one to think that religious
belief can not be the sole reason behind it. 3) Additionally as suicide is a legal
offence, individuals can take guise of such practice. It will also help them in earning
admiration and worship.

4) It will also motivate others to adopt the same which can never be in the interest of
any society.

Society is a complex system and beliefs or standards accepted also varies across
religion or caste.It can not be a good idea to annihilate absolutely such religious
practice but a proper counselling of the individual and understanding their
psychological thinking can help in differentiating the real motto behind it.