Decoding The Judgement on Sallekhana Santhara of The Rajasthan High Court

SR No.: 250435
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: C Devkumar Jain
Publisher: C Devkumar Jain
Publication Year: 2015
Total Pages: 25
Language: English
Classification: Article
File Size: 671 KB

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