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 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