Decoding The Judgement on Sallekhana Santhara of The Rajasthan High Court

Author(s): C Devkumar Jain
Publisher: C Devkumar Jain
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/250435/1

Page #1
Decoding the Judgment (on Santhara/Sallekhana) of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench (D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.7414/2006 (PIL) Nikhil Soni V/s Union of India & ors. Date of Order:- 10.8.2015) Prof Devakumar (Jain), M.Sc., Ph.D., FNAAS Former Assistant Director General, ICAR, New Delhi cdevakumar@gmail.com (Mob. 08010509335) Sadar Jai Jinendra! (Acknowledgements: The author is extremely indebted to Shri R P Jain Saheb, New Delhi for his contant encouragement and valuable guidance from time to time. He also immensely benefitted by the inputs obtained through social and internet media. He is grateful to each one of them.) Introduction: The Jain religion is possibly the oldest living religion being practised all over the world. Literature in Tamil (the most oldest classical language), Sankrit, Kannada and Marathi, Gujarati etc. is also plenty. The epigraphic records in Indian landscape are testimony to Jain practices including Santhara/Sallekhana which is hailed as Vadakkiruththal (meditating facing north) in ancient Tamil literature. The PIL has been influenced by an incident of alleged glorification of Santhara-led death in Jaipur in 2006. The centuries-old practice which was not banned even during Muslim and British rules has received this jolt by this judgment in the Independent India. It must be stated that the battery of leaned advocates for respondents tried very hard to plead for the dismissal of the PIL. The State of Rajasthan must be commended for supporting this practice before the Hon'ble Court. The Hon'ble Court has cited many instances such as sati, human sacrifice, producing more children as a part of religious practices that came up for adjudication and judgments including those adjudicated by the Constitution benches to drive home the point that making an exception to this practice under the law of the land is not possible. The Hon'ble Judges have found merit in the PIL on the grounds that Santhara/Sallekhana is not an essential part of the Jain religion and that the respondents have failed to produce evidences that this practice can be saved under Article 25 of the Constitution of India. What are the available options other than the legal course to save this practice? 1. The definition and scope of Santhara/Sallekhana must be clearly enunciated. Neither fast unto death nor prolonged fasting are the only options under this practice. Imagine a situation: the plane is going to explode. As an ardent Jain, the passenger instantly takes this vow knowing well that there is no chance of survival. There are safety exit options in case the aspirant finds himself/ herself ill-equipped to pursue it further. The guidance of the Guru and self-assessment are the key. Samadhi maran, ichcha mrutyu and Prayopavesa are Hindu practices similar to Santhara/Sallekhana. The respondents have listed examples of Vinoba Bhave, Ramakrishna Paramahans and so this practice is not exclusive to Jains. These facts must be brought out before the Hon'ble Court. This is an opportunity for Jain samaj to get united to take stock of the situation and become proactive. The various Jain sangh can volunteer to get accredited under International Organization for Standardization (www.iso.org/). JAINA can help us in this matter. The standard Operating

Page #2
Procedures for Santhara and Sallekhana can be developed and presented before the Judiciary and the Government. 3. The historical evidences (scriptural, epigraphic and historical records of this practice) before and after Independence may be compiled on priority. Scholarly publication on Santhara/Sallekhana involving international scholars may be brought out. Decoding the Judgment: Key points in the Judgment Remarks Para no. In the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in public interest, the petitioner has prayed for directions to the Union of India and the State of Rajasthan to treat "Santhara" or "Sallekhana" as illegal and punishable under the law of the land and that the instances given in the pleadings, be investigated and subjected to suitable prosecution of which, the abetment be also treated as criminal act. The petitioner's contentions: The vow of Santhara/sallekhana does not give moksha at the end of this life. It strengthens the resolve of the Sadhak to carry forward his/her determination to the next birth. The arguments against other contentions are elaborated in the subsequent paragraphs. The "Santhara" is a practice prevalent in Shvetambara group of Jain community. It is a religious fast unto death on the pretext that when all purpose of life have been served, or when the body is unable to serve any purpose of life, the Santhara will obtain "Moksha". The Santhara is a religious thought, which has no place under the law of the land. The right to freedom of religion under Article-25 in Part-IIIFundamental Rights, is subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this part, which includes Article 21. A practice, however, ancient it may be to a particular religion, cannot be allowed to violate the right to life of an individual. 3 The petitioner's contentions: A voluntary fast unto death is an act of selfdestruction, which amounts to "suicide", which is a criminal offence and is punishable under section 309 IPC and under section 306 IPC.. "Suicide" means an intentional killing of oneself The distinctive definitions of suicide and Santhara/sallekhana must be stated at this point. This will form the basis of subsequent arguments. The definition and scope of Santhara/Sallekhana must be clearly enunciated. Neither fast unto death nor prolonged fasting are the only options under

Page #3
4 5 The petitioner's contentions: A person adopting the Santhara is helped by the entire community in designing it ceremoniously. The house of such person becomes a place of pilgrimage. The entire act is considered to be an act of courage and rational thinking on the pretext that soul never dies. They glorify the act and its eventuality. The petitioner has given several examples of the Santhara to show that it is not an age old and forgotten practice and that it is being practiced even now regularly. Some of the instances of Santhara have been given in paragraph 4 of the writ petition as follows:-"(i) Sohan Kumariji administered the vow of SANTHARA, on 7th Oct.1993. Her fast lasted for 20 days. (ii) Premji Hirji Gala in Nov.1994. Fasted until 212 days. (iii) Jethalal Zaveri fast lasted for 42 days in 1997. (iv) Nirmalananda (illustration taken from the Deccan Herald Jan.10, 1997) the fast lasted for three weeks. (v) Haraklalji Bhairulalji Mehta in Oct.2000 Ahmedabad. The fast lasted for 23 days. He hails from Mahendra Garh near Bhilwara, Rajasthan. (vi) Sadhvi Nirbhay Vani. Fasted for 20 days, 24th May 2003 at Jain Temple Gohana Town and Muni Matiryaji Maharaj, Fasted for 35 days belonging to Terapanth Dharam Sangh at Udasar near Bikaner, Rajasthan." An additional affidavit brought on record the adoption of the Santhara by late Vimla Jain, who was given the status of Sadhvi and her fast unto death was widely publicized by her family members with her photographs in the obituary this practice. Imagine a situation: the plane is going to explode. As an ardent Jain, the passenger instantly takes this vow knowing well that there is no chance of survival. It is not necessary that this vow would not have safety option of opting out in case the aspirant finds himself/herself ill-equipped to pursue it further. The guidance of the Guru and self-assessment The examples cited by the petitioner were however denied by the respondents (vide Annexure 1 and Para 12 of the judgment) This possibly influenced the Hon'ble Judges to rule, "There is no evidence or material to show that the Santhara or Sallekhana has been practiced by the persons professing Jain religion even prior to or after the promulgation of the Constitution of India to protect such right under Article 25 of the Constitution of India" (Para 42). The Jain samaj must introspect about this particular case. Without prejudice and malice, prima facie, such allegations will contradict the spirit of Santhara. This has in

Page #4
columns for having adopted the Santhara. The fact caused this PIL. decorated photograph of her dead body was also published in the newspaper. The newspaper report publicized the religious meetings and glorified the act of late Vimla Devi raising the status of the family in the community. 6-7 6. Notices of the petition were issued on 22.9.2006 also calling upon the Superintendent of Police (East), Jaipur to do the needful if the petitioner approaches him with a complaint. On the next date fixed on 21.12.2006, a large number of individuals sought intervention, to which an objection was taken by the petitioner that they are not true representatives of the Jain community. The Court observed that if all the sundry are formally impleaded as respondents and allowed to file their respective replies, it would make the exercise difficult and cumbersome and thus, allowed intervention by bodies/associations and they were added as respondents and individual interveners to be heard. 7. On 2.5.2007, the Court permitted Shri Man Singh Mehta to intervene in the matter as an individual as others were also allowed to intervene. The matter has, thereafter, been on voyage on So for 7 years, our community outside the cause list from 6.8.2008 for seven years until Rajasthan was oblivious to this PIL. The it was heard on 23.4.2015. The petitioner is lesson learnt is to strengthen our advocating modern thought and thinking, and communication channels. The statement in has relied heavily upon the Constitution of India. the judgment that the petitioner is advocating modern thought and thinking is unfortunate The response of the State is mixed with respect Again, we appreciate the stand taken by the and reverence for the religion, and protection of State of Rajasthan. ancient and rich culture of Jain community. Out The casual attitude of the petitioner was of the confusion and protectionist attitude arises rightly questioned by the State (please read a curious plea by the State that the right of the next Para too). individual practicing Santhara or Sallekhana is protected as a religious practice under the Constitution. It is stated in the reply that the petitioner has failed to substantiate as to how this public interest litigation is maintainable for declaring the religious activity punishable under criminal law. He has failed to place on record any sort of evidence or particular instance, which

Page #5
falls within the ambit of Section 309 IPC. It is further stated that the petitioner has placed on record some clippings of the newspaper and as no complaint has been filed in the Police Station, the investigation is not permissible in law. It is stated that the petitioner has not carried out any research and has also failed to go through the Article 25 of the Constitution of India, which gives right to freedom of religion. The State Government has relied on a study The Justice TK Tukol, former Vicecarried out by Justice T.K.Tukol, It is submitted Chancellor, Bangalore University, has written on behalf of the State that it is not in public a book published from Ahmedabad, namely, interest to entertain such petition. He has failed "Sallekhana is not suicide" in which a lot of to submit on record that the practice of research work and instances have been given Santhara/Sallekhana is practised under force or and which provides the procedure, stage, compulsion and does not amount to religious situation for the person, who wants to adopt activity, whereas it is sufficient to state at this or follow the religious path known as stage that this religious practice or activity or "Sallekhana". The pdf copy of this book is faith is nowhere defined as illegal or criminal act now available and it is the duty of Jain samaj and as such, the same is neither punishable nor to revise the book with more examples and subjected to investigation unless any specific citation from missing scriptures etc. complaint is received by the police authorities. 11 A reply has been filed by Shri Vimal Chand Daga, Strategically, we must underplay this line of Secretary of Sthanakvasi Jain Shravak Sangh, argument as the largely Hindu practice of Jaipur impleaded as respondent no.3. The Sati is now banned by law. Secondly, present litigation is a cloak for attaining private samadhi maran, ichcha mrutyu and ends by a member of the Hindu Society against a Prayopavesa are Hindu practices similar to religious minority community known as "Jain". In Santhara/Sallekhana. The respondents have Appeal No.9575/2003 decided on 21.8.2006, the listed examples of Vinoba Bhave, Supreme Court held that Jain religion is Ramakrishna Pramahans that this practice is undisputedly not a part of Hindu religion. not exclusive to Jains. 12 The eloquent arguments of the respondents may be read at Annexure 1 Some of these objections must be addressed in the appeal. PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS 1. The petitioner is neither a scholar in Jainism nor he has studied the practice of Sallekhana or Santhara. 2. The petitioner has neither made the ladies who had taken Santhara as parties to the petition nor the Jain community. It is by way of additional affidavit that their names have been disclosed. It is settled law that no amount of evidence can be looked into for which there are

Page #6
no pleadings. 3. That the writ petition suffers from the defect of multifariousness. Neither the necessary parties have been impleaded nor the petition disclose the cause of action. 4 thru 7. 8. That as the State is unable to guarantee an individual life and freedom of expression implies freedom of silence, the right to die voluntarily is a right of privacy and self termination of life should not come between an individual and his/her conscience. One has the subtle discriminative power to discern the matter from the eternal. It caused annoyance to the entire Jain community when Smt.Vimla Devi, Kamla Devi and Keladevi were threatened with police action and legal implications in this land of Rishis, Munis and Tirthankaras, when it is the only community practicing righteousness and believes in "Ahimsa". 13. The petitioner has described the practice of This is central to the entire case. Our legal Santhara as abhorrent to modern thinking. The eagles must prove beyond that the practice guarantee given by the Constitution under Article 25 | of Santhara/Sallekhana is enshrined under is that every person in India shall have the freedom of the Articles 21 and 26 and related to our conscience and shall have the right to profess, Constitutional provisions. This calls for practice and propagate religion, subject to restrictions innovative interpretations. imposed by the State on the grounds (i) public order, morality and health; (ii) other provisions of the Constitution; (iii) regulation of non-religious activity associated with religious practice; (iv) social welfare and reform; (v) throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes of Hindus. No practice or belief or tenet, which is abhorrent to public order, morality and health and violates other provisions of the Part-III, namely, Article 21, can protect the religious practice. 14 14. The freedom of conscience as defined in the definition must be revisited if necessary. Webster's New World Dictionary has been After all, the dictionary captures events in encircled with the public order, morality and our life. health and the right to life and the rights of other persons guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India. 15 Religious practices, which are violative of public We must now frame accreditation standards

Page #7
order, morality and health and in which public for undertaking and supervising Santhara in order will include violation of the provisions of line with Standard Operating Procedures the Indian Penal Code (IPC) have been rejected (SOP). to be protected under Article 25 by the Supreme It is unfortunate that Hon'ble High Court had Court in various pronouncements. to refer to such practices in this case. In Jagadishwaranand Avadhuta Acharya, V/s Police Commissioner, Calcutta (AIR 1984 SC 51), the Supreme Court upheld the power of the police to prohibit deleterious practices, such as the sacrifice of human beings in the name of religion, or to direct the exhumation or removal of graves or interred corpses for the purpose of detection of crime or for preventing breach of the peace between fighting communities or to prohibit performance of the 'tandava' dance by the Ananda margis in the public streets or places. Reference was made on the decision in Gulam Abbas V/s State of UP (AIR 1983 SC 1268). 16 Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Another reason for us to frame SOPs. Supreme Court in Church of God (Full Gospel) in India V/s K.K.R.Majestic Colony Welfare Association (2000) 7 SCC 282), in which the Supreme Court observed that in a civilized society in the name of the religion, activities which disturb old or infirm persons, students or children having their sleep in the early hours or during day time or other persons carrying on other activities cannot be permitted. 17 Reliance has also been placed on the decisions in The State has powers to regulate law and N.Adithayan V/s Travancore Devaswom Board order on the grounds cited. We need to ((2002) 8 SCC 106) and Javed & ors. V/s State of prove that Santhara/Sallekhana is an Haryana & ors. (2003) 8 SCC 369) in which it was essential part of a Jain. observed that the right of the State to impose such restrictions as are desired or found necessary on the grounds of public order, health and morality is inbuilt in Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. The religious practice which forms an essential and integral part of religious is protected. A practice may be a religious practice but not an essential and integral part of the religion. Religion cannot, however, claim a practice The Court is reiterating this point of ancient it may be, as an essential part or belief or contention. The Court relies on the tenet, which is violative of the public order and petitioner's contention that this practice is morality accepted by the State under the also violative of the public order and provisions of law including in section 309 IPC. morality. Just merely repeating the sanctity The right to his/her death cannot be treated as

Page #8
of this practice will not satisfy the Court. part of the tenet of the religion, as religion which takes life cannot be allowed to advocate that the taking of life in however purified form is a way of life, which is also an essential tenet of religion. The petitioner appearing in person has tried to This allegation strengthened the appeal of demonstrate that adoption of Santhara, an act | the PIL. We must disprove this allegation by with criminal content, has become a means of filing defamation suit. Secondly, we must climbing social ladder. Any person adopting frame safety guidelines. Santhara is not allowed to go back on his vow, and the entire family and community forces him/her to complete the process in which he has to go through inhuman and intolerant conditions. He/she is some times tied to the chair or bed and is not allowed to eat and drink, even if he/she wants to come out of the vow or suffers from pain on the ground of criticism. A person adopting Santhara is surrounded by the groups singing Bhajan and Kirtan and he/she is made to loose conscience and drawn by religious fanaticism, to accept the process of death. It is submitted that this notorious, abhorrent and tribal practice in the religion must be stopped. This judgment is going to be cited again and again as it has reliance in this case. It is submitted that Article 25 has no application to an essential religious practice and has relied upon the decision in Gian Kaur V/s State of Punjab (IT 1996(3) SC 339), in which the Supreme Court has protected the right to die by a person, who is terminally ill or in persistent vegetative state to terminate his life and though setting aside the declaration of law in P.Rathinam/Nagbhusham Patnaik Vs Union of India (JT 1994(3) SC 394), raising a doubt in the case of terminally ill or for a person in persistent vegetative state to be permitted physician assisted termination and keeping the argument open, which was tried to be addressed by the Supreme Court in Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug V/s Union of India & ors. ((2011) 4 SCC 454). The Court is concerned with the short question Central issue indeed. It is applicable to all as to whether the practice of sects and all gender. Santhara/Sallekhana practised by the Shvetambaras group of Jain religion is an essential tenet of the Jain religion protected by the right to religion under Article 25 of the

Page #9
Constitution of India. Shri Madhav Mitra, learned counsel appearing Right to die in calm posture and in dignity for the petitioner submits that this practice is a without the influences of fear, anger, hatred kind of self-emulation, wherein the person and such negative traits: to be or not to be! adopting it starts fast to achieve the goal of death in which he stopped consuming food, water and medicines. It is nothing but suicide under the garb of religious beliefs. No individual has a right to take his own life. The Supreme Court in Gian Kaur Vs. State of Punjab (supra) held that Section 309 IPC is valid and not violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The right to life does not include the right to die. The right to human dignity does not include the right to terminate natural life and it has overruled the previous judgment of its own Court in P.Rathinam V/s Union of India (supra). It is submitted that in Aruna Ramchandra | reiterate that time is now to frame such Shanbaug V/s Union of India & ors. (supra), the guidelines for self-regulating this practice by Supreme Court held that both euthanasia and the Jain sangh not necessarily the way assisted suicide are not lawful in India. The right suggested by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. to life does not include the right to die and that considering the absence of single command euthanasia could be lawful only by legislation. and control structure in Jain samaj, the After considering the question of non-voluntary | Supreme Court's procedure may come into passive euthanasia, the Supreme Court laid act. down certain guidelines for the procedure for permitting death, under certain conditions. The Supreme Court laid down a procedure detailing the conditions for such action till the Act is enacted by the Parliament. The procedure provides for a decision to be taken by the patients to discontinue life support or the spouse or other close relatives and in their absence by a person next or by the doctors attending the patient. The decision must be bonafide and thereafter, approval must be sought from the High Court by filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court in such case acts as parens patriae. The matter should be decided by at least two Judges. The Bench will constitute a Committee of three reputed doctors after consulting such medical authorities/medical practitioners, preferably comprising of a Neurologist, Psychiatrist and Physician. The report of the Committee is to be made available

Page #10
to the patients and his close relatives to obtain their views and thereafter, the High Court should give its decision assigning reasons, keeping in view the best interest of the patient. It is submitted that although in Aruna These judgments must be studied in depth. Ramchandra Shanbaug Vs Union of India (supra), the Supreme Court left the question as to whether not taking food consciously and voluntarily with the aim to end one's life is a crime, the substance of the judgments in Gian Kaur (supra) and Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug (supra) is that no person has a right to take his own life consciously, as the right to life does not include the right to end the life voluntarily. 25. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner Repetition of the same argument. The that even the act committed with the consent of petitioner is not convinced that there should the individual to end his/her life is punishable be a provision to end one's life. under the Indian Penal Code. The offence of The use of instigation must be countered murder under section 300 IPC prohibits against. A special provision by way of exception, which goes to show that such an act promolgamation of An Act may be another may not amount to murder, but would be route. termed as "culpable homicide". It is submitted that the religious belief of the Jain community is not protected under Article 25 of the Constitution of India. 26. It is submitted that the religious belief of the Jain community is not protected under Article 25 of the Constitution of India and to the other provisions of this part, which includes Article 21 guaranteeing right to life and which cannot be taken away either voluntarily or involuntarily. The underlying principle is that if a person cannot give life, he has no right to take life as himself or of others. 27. It is submitted that the 'Santhara' or 'Sallekhana' is not a religious practice adopted regularly. It is adopted occasionally by the individual and instigated by others to achieve the salvation. No religion propagating salvation permits taking the life of any individual, which includes the persons taken their own life. The persons professing Jain religion though in religious minority, do not have any special status nor does the interest of minority permits taking

Page #11
2832 life and gives a constitutional right. 28. The Advocates belonging to the Jain community have filed bulky written arguments to support the Santhara as a religious practice. quoted from scriptures and preaching of Jain religion, which is not by way of taking one's life for attaining any status or relief from pain. They state that adopting Santhara is not suicide. It is a death with equanimity in pursuit of immortality. It is a victory over death or rather the fear of death. Persons taking vow of Santhara face it bravely and boldly whenever death becomes to them. They are spiritual aspirants, who retain their equanimity in the face of death and their death does not remain fearful but becomes peaceful. Such peaceful death is called "Samadhimarana". It is practiced by those inveterate spiritual aspirants, who are in eternal pursuit to immortality. Jainism is known for many a unique spiritual practice and accomplishment since its propounding by the first Lord Prophet Rsabhadeva, centuries ago at the beginning of time cycle. The antiquity of Jain religion and Santhara is unquestionably proven by its mention in the ancient scriptures. It is equally modern and rational in its philosophy and approach. It is modern in the sense that spiritual aspirants, in the pursuit of immortality, It is opportune moment to capture all these references to compile a book on the subject. The arguments could not convince the Court to find a provision under Articles 21 and 25. Only a Constitutional Bench can look into this issue. What was the debate in the Constituent Assembly on this subject?

Page #12
undertake this practice. It is rational in the sense that the very purpose of human existence in its spiritual evolution to perfection and to overcome all impediments that hinder its progress towards this noble goal. The fear of death is one such hindrance and in that sense, the Santhara overcomes this hindrance and paves the way for spirit's attainment of perfection. It not only enables the spiritual aspirant to overcome the fear of death but also highlights the indomitable human spirit that would not stop short of achieving its goal whatever may be in the say. Reference has been made to the book of Dr.Colonel D.S.Baya, which covers almost all aspects of this spiritual practice by the Jains across the sectarian divisions and across the world. The book justifies the Santhara as religious practice, which is essential to the religion of Jain. Quoting from the Jain scriptures and using a research methodology including literary, field research and research finding, it was concluded in the book that embracing voluntary peaceful death by fasting unto death after a preparatory penance is the ultimate form of penance that culminates in a fearless death in a state of equanimity of mind. It is a noble form of death, which does not use any violent means to die in a fit of the moment and it is perfectly non-violent as it causes no injury to the self or the other. The Santhara is perfectly peaceful, calm and quiet and is distinct from the voluntary death practiced by the followers of the other faiths in that it uses no violent means to die and that there is no desire to die associated with it. It is simply a noble way to voluntarily discard and worn out and diseased body that does not remain spiritually productive any longer. The practice has been a tradition with the Jain ever since the dawn of civilization and it has been practiced by the Jain ascetics and lay followers since the time of Bagman Rsabhadeva to the present age. The Jain scriptures, rock inscriptions and media report amply bear evidence to the facts. It cannot be compared with suicide, Sati or any other form of honour deaths and it attracts no provisions of law against it. Justice T.K.Tukol opined that omission

Page #13
to take food is not an offence under section 309 of the Indian Penal Code which deals with suicide and that it is not an offence because it does not injure others. It was finally concluded in the book that it is a noblest way to die in the pursuit of immortality 29. In the written arguments filed by Shri Vimal Choudhary, Advocate, Shri Sunil Nath, Advocate appearing for respondent no.3, Shri Anuroop Singhi, Advocate settled by Shri J.K.Singhi, Senior Advocate, Shri Vivek Dangi/Vijay Choudhary, Advocates settled by Shri Virendra Dangi, Senior Advocate, Shri Ajit Maloo, Advocate settled by Shri N.K.Maloo, Senior Advocate, Shri Hemant Sogani/Himanshu Sogani, Advocates appearing for the applicant- Veerendra Kumar Jain and Shri Ajit Bhandari, Advocate appearing for the respondent no.4, reliance has been placed on various books and articles and references have been made to the religious scriptures including the opinions of Shri Swami Samantbhadra Acharya, Shrimadacharya Puivapad, Shri Acharaya Uma Swami and Shri Dhyan Sagar Ji Maharaj and articles of Justice T.K.Tukol and Justice N.K.Jain. Reliance has also been placed on various studies carried out by the scholars including the scholars of Jain Vishva Bharathi University, in support of the argument that the Santhara or Sallekhana is not by way of suicide, but for attaining the moksha and it is accepted form of death in the Jain religion for salvation. 30. References have also been made to the Acharanga Sutra (pages 421, 432, 438, 439 and 444) and preaching of Jain Muniji Maharaj. References have also been made to Sutra 122 Ratnakaranda Sravakacara, Shree Bhagwati Sutra from "Death with Equanimity" (Para 0.2.06), Jnata Dharma Kathanga Sutra, Rai Paseniva Sutra, Acharanga Sutra, Sthnang Sutra, Acharanga Sutra (page 252 to 255) and Acharanga Sutra (pages 262 to 267). 31. In all the written arguments, reliance has been placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Gian Kaur (supra) and Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug (supra), in which the debate of voluntary death by a peaceful method

Page #14
was left inconclusive. 32. In written arguments providing details of references to the religious scriptures and the opinions of monks as well as the research articles, it is sought to be advocated that the Santhara or Sallekhana is not suicide, which is punishable under section 309 of the Indian Penal Code. It is accepted form of voluntary death taken step by step to achieve moksha, with full wisdom and insight. It is not a violent method of death and is permissible in the Jain religion. All the counsels appearing for the respondents in their oral and written arguments have tried to impress the Court to dismiss the writ petition, as the old-aged practice of Santhara or Sallekhana is protected by Article 25 of the Constitution of India. 33. In Onkar Singh etc. etc. V/s State of Rajasthan The judgment approving the banning of (RLR 1987 (W) 957), a Division Bench of this Court Sati, a religious practice by a section of in a celebrated progressive judgment considered | Hindus emboldened the Court to the challenge to the Rajasthan Sati (Prevention) | pronounce Santhara as illegal. Ordinance, 1987, on the ground of violation of What is Clause 19 of the Ordinance which Articles 25, 26, 174, 213 and 51A of the was retained? Constitution of India. After referring to the Rig Veda Mantras, Atharva Veda and various scriptures, in which the practice of Sati was alleged to have been accepted; referring to the practice of Sati allegedly religious practice referred to in the Vishnu Purana Shastra prevalent in various sects of Punjab, Orissa and Bengal; referring to the studies by Professor Kane and Cromwell in the book "Raja Ram Mohan Rai his era and ethics; referring to the judgments in Ramdava V/s Emperors (AIR 1914 All.249). Emperor v/s Vidyasagar (AIR 1928 Pat.497) & Kindarsingh V/s Emperor (AIR 1933 All 160), in which the abetment of Sati was held to be an offence and sentences were inflicted, the Division Bench observed that in all the ages, the Rajas. Maharajas. Jagirdars and Emperors have made efforts to stop, ban and punish those persons who abet and propagate the glorification of Sati. It was declared an offence in the year 1987 and cannot be said to be protected by the Constitution of India in any way. The challenge to the Ordinance was dismissed except

Page #15
for Clause 19 of the Ordinance, which was held to be ultra vires being violative of Articles 13, 14, 21, 25 and 51-A(e) of the Constitution of India, providing for the continuance of ceremonies in the temples in connection with the Sati constructed prior to the commencement of the Act. The landmark judgment is a piece of great legal work, which reaffirmed the rule of law in the State of Rajasthan, in which the sections of people glorified the practice of Sati as a religious practice protected by Article 25 of the Constitution of India. there are and 26 to 34. In Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb V/S From this judgment, State of Bombay (AIR 1962 SC 853), al opportunities under Art 25 Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held defend our case. that Articles 25 and 26 embody the principles of religious toleration that has been the characteristic feature of the Indian civilization from the start of history. They serve to emphasize the secular nature of the Indian Democracy, which the founding fathers considered, should be the very basis of the Constitution. In paras 40, 44 and 57, the Supreme Court held as follows: "Where an excommunication is itself based on religious grounds such as lapse from the orthodox religious creed or doctrine (similar to what is considered heresy, apostasy or schism under the Canon Law) or breach of some practice considered as an essential part of the religion by the Dawoodi Bohras in general, excommunication cannot but be held to be for the purpose of maintaining the strength of the religion. It necessarily follows that the exercise of this power of excommunication on religious grounds forms part of the management by the community, through its religious head "of its own affairs in matters of religion" guaranteed under Article 26(b). The impugned Act makes even such excommunication invalid and takes away the power of the Dai as the head of the community to excommunication even on religious grounds. It, therefore, clearly interferes with the right of the Dawoodi Bohra community under cl.(b) of Art.26 of the Constitution..... The right under Art.26(b) is subject to cl.(2) of

Page #16
Art.25 of the Constitution. The impugned Act, however does not come within the saving provisions embodied in cl.(2) of Art.25. As the Act invalidates excommunication on any ground whatsoever, including religious grounds, it must be held to be in clear violation of the right of the Dawoodi Borha community under Art.26(b) of the Constitution. As the right guaranteed by Art.25(1) is not confined to freedom of conscience in the sense of the right to hold a belief and to propagate that belief, but includes the right to the practice of religion, the consequences of that practice must also bear the same complexion and be the subject of like guarantee. It is not as if the impugned enactment saves only the civil consequences of an excommunication not interfering with the other consequences of an excommunication falling within, the definition. On the other hand, it would be correct to say that the Act is concerned with excommunication which might have religious significance but which also operate to deprive persons of their civil rights." 35 35. In Gian Kaur V/s State of Punjab (supra), the Very sticky ground to argue for provisions Supreme Court disagreeing with the reasons under Art 21 but there are hopes for an given in P.Rathinam's case (supra) observed in intelligent interpreter of Law. paras 21 to 25 as follows: "21. ..... In those decisions it is the negative aspect of the right that was invoked for which no positive or overt act was required to be done by implication. This difference in the nature of rights has to be borne in mind when making the comparison for the application of this principle. 22. ...... Article 21 is a provision guaranteeing protection of life and personal liberty and by no stretch of imagination can extinction of life' be read to be included in protection of life!. Whatever may be the philosophy of permitting a person to extinguish his life by committing suicide, we find it difficult to construe Article 21 to include within it the right to die' as a part of the fundamental right guaranteed therein. 'Right to life is a natural right embodied in Article 21 but suicide is an unnatural termination or

Page #17
extinction of life and therefore, incompatible and inconsistent with the concept of right to life'. 23. To give meaning and content to the word 'life' in Article 21, it has been construed as life with human dignity. Any aspect of life which makes it dignified may be read into it but not that which extinguishes it and is, therefore, inconsistent with the continued existence of life resulting in effacing the right itself. The right to die', if any, is inherently inconsistent with the right to life' as is death with life'. 24. ...... The right to life' including the right to live with human dignity would mean the existence of such a right up to the end of natural life. This also includes the right to a dignified life up to the point of death including a dignified procedure of death. In other words, this may include the right of a dying man to also die with dignity when his life is ebbing out. But the "right to die' with dignity at the end of life is not to be confused or equated with the right to die' an unnatural death curtailing the natural span of life. 25. A question may arise, in the context of a dying man, who is, terminally ill or in a persistent vegetative state that he may be permitted to terminate it by a premature extinction of his life in those circumstances. This category of cases may fall within the ambit of the 'right to die' with dignity as a part of right to live with dignity, when death due to termination of natural life is certain and imminent and the process of natural death has commenced. These are not cases of extinguishing life but only of accelerating conclusion of the process of natural death which has already commenced.... It is sufficient to reiterate that the argument to support the view of permitting termination of life in such cases to reduce the period of suffering during the process of certain natural death is not available to interpret Article 21 to include therein the right to

Page #18
curtail the natural span of life. 36 36. In Gian Kaur's case_(supra), the Supreme How have complicated our society with all Court repelled the challenge based on Article 14 shades of demands making genuine practice of the Constitution to the right to life under of Santhara illegal? Our learned advocates Article 21 and reaffirmed retaining the Section have to find out ways and means to rescue 309 in the Indian Penal Code.... The assisted this practice. suicide and assisted attempt to commit suicide are made punishable for cogent reasons in the interest of society. Such a provision is considered desirable to also prevent the danger inherent in the absence of such a penal provision. The abettor is viewed differently, in as much as he abets the extinguishment of life of another persons and punishment of abetment is considered necessary to prevent abuse of the absence of such a penal provision. It also held that assisted suicides outside the category of physician assisted suicide or euthanasia have no rational basis to claim exclusion of the fundamental principles of sanctity of life. The argument that right to die is included in Article 21 of the Constitution and is protected as a religious practice has no substance and is not acceptable. 37 A practice may be religious but not an essential and integral part of practice of that religion. The latter is not protected by Article 25.... The Supreme Court relied on M.Ismail Faruqui (Dr.) V/s Union of India ((1994) 6 SCC 360) and the judgments in Sarla Mudgal V/s Union of India ((1995) 3 SCC 635), Mohd.Ahmed Khan V/s Shah Bano Begum ((1985) 2 SCC 556) and Mohd. Hanif Qureshi V/s State of Bihar (AIR 1958 SC 731). 38. In State of Gujarat V/s Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat & ors. ((2005) 8 SCC 534), a Constitution Bench considering the Bombay Animal Preservation Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1994 restricting the bulls and bullocks below the age of 16 years could not be slaughtered, repelled the challenge on the ground that slaughtering of cows on Bakrl's is neither essential nor necessarily required as a part of the religious ceremony. An optional religious practice is not covered by Article 25(1).

Page #19
39. In order to save the practice of Santhara or Acharya Kunda Kunda's classification is the Sallekhana from the vice of criminal offence only hope. But it will be difficult to prove under section 309 IPC, the argument that that it is acceptable to all sects. In fact, not Santhara or Sallekhana is an essential religious all yati's and vrati's have been lucky to practice of the Jain religion, has not been adopt this sacred practice. established. 40. The Constitution does not permit nor include under Article 21 the right to take one's own life, nor can include the right to take life as an essential religious practice under Article 25 of the Constitution. 41 No religious practice, whether essential or non- Without prejudice to the sovereignty of our essential or voluntary can permit taking one's nation, I do not know under which Article, own life to be included under Article 25. The we send our Commandos and army men to right guaranteed for freedom of conscience and face the risk of death. Such decisions are the right to freely profess, practice and mostly political or creation of policy. propagate cannot include the right to take one's Under which law, the fasts under Satyagrah life, on the ground that right to life includes the and by Anna Hazare in recent years were right to end the life. Even in extraordinary allowed? circumstances, the voluntary act of taking one's life cannot be permitted as the right to practice and profess the religion under Article 25 of the Constitution of India. 42. The respondents have failed to establish that Unlike Sati, there was no historical record the Santhara or 'Sallekhana' is an essential banning Santhara/Sallekhana even during religious practice, without which the following of Muslim rule. This point must be brought out the Jain religion is not permissible. There is no in the Review petition. evidence or material to show that the Santhara It is time we update our collection of or Sallekhana has been practiced by the persons epigraphical records. professing Jain religion even prior to or after the promulgation of the Constitution of India to protect such right under Article 25 of the Constitution of India. 43 43. The writ petition is allowed with directions to We need to seek stay of the judgment and the State authorities to stop the practice of pursue for its reversal. 'Santhara' or 'Sallekhana' and to treat it as suicide punishable under section 309 of the Indian Penal Code and its abetment by persons under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The State shall stop and abolish the practice of 'Santhara' and 'Sallekhana' in the Jain religion in any form. Any complaint made in this regard shall be registered as a criminal case and investigated by the police, in the light of the

Page #20
recognition of law in the Constitution of India and in accordance with Section 309 or Section 306 IPC, in accordance with law.

Page #21
Annexure 1 THE SALIENT POINTS GIVEN THE RESPONDENT (Para 12 of the Judgment) 12. The reply defends the practice of Santhara/Sallekhana as an exercise of self purification and a popular religious practice throughout the history of Jainism. It is known as voluntary vow with meditation till the person lives by abstaining from food, water and every kind of nourishment to the body when one is approaching the end of life. It is stated that Sallekhana is not giving up life, but it is very much taking the death in its own stride. Jainism believes in rebirth and so the consequences of our Karmas are dependent upon own good and bad thoughts, words and deeds. In order to appreciate the reply given defending Santhara/Sallekhana, which according to the answering respondent no.3 is saved by Articles 25, 26 and 29 of the Constitution of India, it will be necessary to reproduce the contents from paragraphs 2 to 8 of the reply as follows:"2. The respondents respectfully submit that petitioner is completely ignorant of the "Vrat" of "Santhara" or "Sallekhana". Santhara or Sallekhana is prevalent in the entire Jain community. Santhara is not adopted in order to obtain Moksha. It is not admitted that Santhara is a voluntary suicide. Sallekhana is the key to attain salvation in the least possible number of birth and death cycles ahead by consciously toiling to purge the soul from karmas. According to Jainism, every individual soul, by its nature, is pure and perfect, with infirm perception, knowledge power and bliss. But from eternity, it is associated with Karmic matter and has therefore become subject to birth and rebirth in numerous forms of existence. The supreme object of religion is to show the way for liberation of the soul from the bondage of Karma. The true path of liberation lies in the attainment of Right Faith, Right Knowledge and Right conduct in complete union and harmony. The basic concept underlying the vow is that man who is the master of his own destiny should face death in such a way as to prevent influx of new Karmas even at the last moment of his life and at the same time liberate the soul from bondage of Karmas that may be clinching to it then. Santhara: According to Jain scriptures, Santhara means to weaken the strength of body and passion for putting an end to the bodily existence without consciously coveting death by fasting. It is undertaken when one is faced with an unavoidable natural calamity, severe drought, old age or an incurable disease. Prior to the adoption of the vow, one is required to give up all feelings of love, hatred, companionship and worldly attachments with a pure all humanity at the same time forgiving them sincerely. It is also desired that one may undertake the great vow of Santhara after discussing it thoroughly and frankly with one's guru (religious preceptor). It is interesting to find that in Jain Religion there is a tradition of a typical systematic fasting, which is known as Sallekhana. It is absolutely misconstrued as a step to end life or fast unto death. It is a Code of Right Conduct and self discipline practiced with a healthy desire for elevation of life and self realization akin to shifting to one's own house from a rental house (the body. It leads to the inward path of Nirvriti from Pravriti by complete detachment form the sensory_system. Santhara is an exercise for self-purification. This religious act known as Sallekhna-Santhara has remained very popular throughout the history of Jainism. It is mostly known for a voluntary vow "meditation till the person lives: (Santhara)

Page #22
by abstaining from food, water and every kind of nourishment to the body when one is approaching the end of life. Sallekhana is not giving up life but it is very much taking the death in its own stride. Jainism believes in rebirth and so the consequences of our Karmas are dependent upon our own good and bad thoughts, words and deeds. Every living being is responsible for its own activities the consequences of which work out automatically. One cannot escape from one's Karmas except by experiencing their consequences, good or bad. The Karmas bear fruit and are therefore responsible for our Karmic bodies. Depending on the nature of the individual's Karma, the next life may be human or otherwise. In Ratna-Karanda Sravakacara for Sallekhana it is stated as under:"The holy men say that sallekhana is giving up the body (by fasting) when there is an unavoidable calamity, severe draught, old age or incurable disease, in order to observe the discipline of religion." It is emphatically denied that Santhara is a voluntary suicide. Sallekhana (Santhara) is arbitrarily equated with the offence of suicide or Sati or euthanasia in the PIL. The main psychological and physical features of suicide are: (1) the victim is under an emotional stress; (2) He or she is overpowered with a feeling of disgrace, fear, disgust or hatred at the time when suicide is resorted to; (3) The main intention of committing suicide is to escape from the consequences of certain acts or events; disgrace, agony, punishment, social stigma or tyranny of treatment etc. (4) The kind is far away from religious or spiritual considerations (5) The means employed to bring about the death are weapons of offence or death; (6) The death is sudden inmost cases unless the victim is rescued earlier; (7) The act is committed in secrecy (8) it causes misery or bereavement to the kith and kin. The basic concept underlying the vow of Santhara is that a man who is the master of his own destiny should resolve himself to follow the best method of leaving the body. During Santhara one must not wish to live on or desire sensual pleasures but equally he must not seek for death to come swiftly. 3. It is denied that Santhara or Sallekhana violates the provisions of Indian Penal Code or the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that the petitioner has failed to implead the Jain community in the writ petition as laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. It is prevalent in the Jain community for more than 2000 years or say since time immemorial by the followers of the worlds oldest Jain religion. Justice T.K.Tukol, former Vice-Chancellor, Bangalore University in his book "Sallekhana is not suicide" has given complete history. In Chapter 3 under title "Sallekhana in practice", he has given various instances of Sallekhana prevalent in the country in Jain community. It reflects culture of Jain community and proves that Sallekhana was prevalent in the Jain community as a custom or practice or ritual and has been recognized as a culture of the community as art of living. Jains are the only community who celebrates birth and death both. It may be mentioned that culture is a collective name for the material, social-religious and artistic achievements of human growth including traditions, customs and behavioural patterns all of which are unified by a common place and values. Since India is a secular state the State is not to associate with religion and is not to interfere with it. The way in which the writ petition has been filed amounts to making mockery of Jain

Page #23
religious practice and the right of Jain to manage their own affairs in the matter of religion as guaranteed by Article 25, 26(b) and 29 of the Constitution. It is an admitted case of the petitioner that the practice of Santhara is being followed as part of customary and religious practice. It is thus clear that Santhara is religious practice or ritual and as such can be performed as per religious tenets, usages and custom. Before appreciating upon the propriety of Santhara practice one has to understand the metaphysical ethical and social concepts of Jainism which are different from other religion. Jain metaphysics divides the Universe into eternally co-existing but independent, categories, One Jiva-the soul-second Ajiva-the non-soul. The body is the non-soul. Soul is the central theme in Jaina system. The ultimate goal of a human life in Jainism is the realization of the soul viz. Atma Darshan after its emancipation from the entanglement of non-soul of the body. 5. That the contents of Para (5) of the writ petition are emphatically denied. 6. That the contents of Para (6) of the writ petition appears to have been not interpreted properly. Under Section 309 IPC punishment has been provided for attempt to suicide. In a changing society, notions of what is objectionable have always been changing. A crime predominantly is dependent upon the policy of the State. It may be mentioned that some time back Law Commission in its report has recommended for abolition of Section 309 IPC. A Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held Section 309 IPC as violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Though the said judgment of the Division Bench stands overruled but the Constitution Bench has recognized that the right to life including the right to live with human dignity would mean the existence of such a right up to the end of natural life which means right to a dignified life up to the point of death including a dignified procedure of death. In other words this may include the right of dying man to also die with dignity when his life is ebbing out. 7. It appears that the learned petitioner has not correctly appreciated the judgment of the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Gyan Kaur Vs. State of Punjab (IT 1996(3) SC 339). The Supreme Court in Gyan Kaur has declared the law as under: "A question may arise, in the context of a dying man, who is, terminally ill or in a persistent vegetative state that he may be permitted to terminate it by a premature extinction of his life in those circumstances. This category of cases may fall within the ambit of the 'right to die' with dignity as a part of right to live with dignity, when death due to termination of natural life is certain and imminent and the process of natural death has commenced. These are not cases of extinguishing life but only of accelerating conclusion of the process of natural death which has already commenced. The debate even in such cases to permit physician-assisted termination of life is inconclusive. It is sufficient to reiterate that the argument to support the view of permitting termination of life in such cases to reduce the period of suffering during the process of certain natural death is not available to interpret Article 21 to include therein the right to curtail the natural span of life." Every man as per Hindu religion lives to accomplish four objectives of life (1) Dharma (2) Artha (3) Karma and (4) Moksha. When the earthly objectives are complete, religion would require a person not to clinch to the body. Thus a man has moral right to terminate his life, because death is simply changing the old body into a new one.

Page #24
Our mythology is full of incidents when our Gods have terminated their life. Lord Ram took "Jalsamadi" in river Sarvu. Lord Mahavir and Lord Buddha achieved death by seeking it. In recent days Shri Vinoba Bhave met his end by undertaking fast. So was the case of Swami Ram Krishna Param Hans. Maa Anandmai. The folk deity of Rajasthan 'RAMDEOJI" has taken living samadhi. India Saints every year willingly relinquish the body which is called 'Samadhi Maran'. Instances are there where Jain munis have terminated their lives by going on fast that is, by adopting the practice of "Santhara". Shri Raichand Bhai, religious guru of Mahatma Gandhi took "Samadhimaran" at the age of 33 years. Santhara may fall within the category of cases which may fall within the group of right to die with dignity as a part of life with dignity when death is certain and imminent and the process of natural death has commenced. There is long tradition of Santhara in Shramanic culture which is an expression of fearless towards death. It is rising above all bodily pains and sufferings. It is a process of painlessness and becoming a "Stith Progya". 8. That the contents of Para (8) of the writ petition have no relevancy with the case in hand. It is a case of different circumstances. There are lots of cases where Anglo-British Courts have permitted the withdrawal of the life supports. 10. Under the law of the country nobody can be forced to eat or drink against his/her will. The case of hunger strike is quite different. In the case of hunger strike if the demand is made the person concerned would automatically withdraws the fast. As such the case of Santhara is quite different. The Jain Sallekhana leaves ample time for further reconsideration of the situation as the process which is primarily intended to elevate the will is extended over a period of days and is not brought to an end at once. It would be legally wrong and morally insupportable to categorize death by Sallekhana as a suicide which is sudden self-destruction due to emotional and neurasthenic upsetment. Suicide causes harm to the person committing it as also to the society whose concern it is to ensure the safety of its member. Umasvami has defined himsa (violence) as 'severance of vitalities out of passion' (pramatta-yogat pranavyaparopanam himsa). A person actuated by passion is pramatta. The activity of such a person is pramatta-voga. Amrtacandra Suri has expressed similar views; He who injures the real nature of Jiva commits himsa. Himsa is sure to result, if one acts carelessly under the influence of passions. "Even where there is injury to the vitalities, there is no himsa if the man is not moved by any kind of passion and is carefully following Right Conduct". Thus, it is only when a person puts an end to his own life due to his passionate activity that there is suicide. It has already been explained that in the observance of the vow of Sallekhana, there is complete absence of passion and the conduct is directed to liberate the soul from the bondage of karma. When such individual advances himself spiritually by his austerities and meditation, his life elevates the community of devotees and other onlookers by purifying the mind of every individual and by creating an awareness in him or her of the inherent potentialities of the self. The conquest of all passions and full detachment from worldly desires and possessiveness visible in the conduct of the ascetic or the householder evoke our reverence for him. His quiet and joyful death makes us conscious of what is good for the individual and the community at large. His path of absolute renunciation and his march towards self-realization enables and enlightens the society at large. Such death is not suicide and cannot be categorized as such either according to law or morals. The Saints and sages of India are known for

Page #25
defiance of death. When they realize the futility of their perishable body or when they achieved their goal for seeking the love of life, they voluntarily invoke death. They have risen above life and death. In the brahmanic it is called living samadhi. To treat it as suicide, amounts to ignorance of the Indian culture. The constitutions of democratic countries guarantee freedom "to practice, propagate and preserve one's own religion". This right is subject to interests of public order, morality and health. Even if the Indian Penal Code does not refer to this freedom of religion enshrined in Article 25 of the Constitution, the Constitution overrides the law in the Penal Code or other identical provisions in any other law. The practice of Sallekhana does not interfere with public order, health or morality. Sallekhana is pinnacle of glory of life and death. It is not an immolation but promotion of soul. It is in no way a tragedy. Jainism speaks of death very boldly and in a fearless tone to impress that death should be well welcomed with celebrations. Sallekhana is a retreat to peace in true sense, to be yourself entirely free from all distractions for pure contemplation and introspection. The right of individuals practice Sallekhana or Santhara is protected by right of privacy. The practice of Santhara has been recognized by Privy Council in the year 1863 to be prevalent from time immemorial. The right of privacy has been recognized in the case of alleged suicide by Chary Vinoba Bhave in a well known judgment. In the case of Muni Badri Prasad who practiced Santhara, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1987 did not even consider the case fit for admission, where it was equated to suicide. Article 26 lays down that every religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right to manage its own affairs in the matter of religion. It is submitted that practice of Sallekhana is impossible for each and everybody to adopt the vow of Sallekhana because it requires the devotee to possess an unshakeable conviction that the soul and the body are separate, that the body is the result of accumulated karmas and that liberation from karmas is possible only by an austere life of supreme conduct founded on right faith and knowledge. The right is also protected under Article 29 of the Constitution of India. It cannot be denied that Jains have their own culture and therefore any section of the citizens residing in the territory of India having culture of its own has the right to conserve the same. The Jain community is a religious minority community and also it is a cultural minority and therefore it is the mandate of the constitution that the State shall not impose upon it any other culture which may be local or otherwise. The state has no authority to force feed a Sadhak who has taken the vow of sallekhana. In the PIL Sallekhana that is Santhara in complete ignorance is equated with the offence of suicide, sati custom and euthanasia. The difference between Santhara and suicide has been vividly explained in many articles by the Scholars. The answering respondent shall be submitting the same at the time of making submissions. By fasting is meant voluntary abstinence from all food. It is the oldest method of cure in disease even animals resort to it instinctively. 11. It is again reiterated that Santhara is not a suicide. Jainam Jayatu Sasanam!