A public interest litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Madhya Pradesh High Court seeking a ban on the Jain ritual of 'Santhara' for minors and individuals of "unsound mind." Santhara, also known as Sallekhana or Samadhi Maran, is a religious practice in Jainism where adherents voluntarily fast to death, believing it leads to spiritual purification and liberation. The plea has brought renewed attention to the ethical and legal complexities surrounding the practice, particularly when applied to those who may not be able to make informed decisions.
The PIL was spurred by the death of a three-year-old girl in Indore, Madhya Pradesh, who had been diagnosed with a brain tumor. According to reports, the child's parents, on the advice of a religious leader, initiated her into Santhara. This incident sparked outrage among child rights activists, medical professionals, and legal experts, who questioned the legality and ethics of imposing such a practice on a minor. The Madhya Pradesh Child Rights Commission has taken cognizance of the matter and is examining whether the act constitutes a violation of child protection laws.
Santhara involves a gradual reduction of food and liquid intake, leading to death. Proponents of the practice view it as a way to detach from the physical world and shed karmic bonds. Jain scriptures stipulate that Santhara should only be undertaken when a person is nearing death due to old age, incurable disease, or during famine. Those who take the vow are expected to master their emotions, renounce possessions, detach from worldly pleasures and loved ones, express remorse, and seek forgiveness.
The legality of Santhara in India has been a subject of debate. In 2015, the Rajasthan High Court declared the practice illegal, equating it to suicide and making it punishable under the Indian Penal Code. However, the Supreme Court stayed this decision, effectively allowing the practice to continue pending further legal review. The Supreme Court viewed the ritual as a fundamental aspect of Jainism, protected under the right to religious freedom (Article 25).
The application of Santhara to minors raises particularly complex concerns. Legal experts argue that minors lack the capacity to make informed decisions about life and death. The Indian Constitution guarantees the right to life under Article 21, and religious freedom is subject to public order, morality, and health considerations. Senior lawyer Ritesh Agarwal told NDTV that the decision of life and death of a minor is not even with the parents and that religious practices cannot override a minor's legal right to life.
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), to which India is a signatory, emphasizes that the best interests of the child must be paramount in all decisions affecting them. Child rights organizations argue that no religious practice should override a child's right to life, dignity, and protection. The state can override parental rights if a child's life or welfare is endangered under the Parens Patriae Doctrine.
The recent PIL in the Madhya Pradesh High Court seeks to address the legal ambiguity surrounding Santhara, specifically concerning minors and individuals of unsound mind. Social activist Pranshu Jain, who initiated the PIL, argues that administering Santhara undermines the constitutional right to life and liberty. The High Court's Indore bench has included the girl's parents in the list of respondents, alongside the central and state governments and the National Human Rights Commission. A hearing is anticipated soon.
The debate surrounding Santhara highlights the tension between religious freedom and the protection of vulnerable individuals. While religious freedom is a constitutionally protected right, it is not absolute and must be balanced against other fundamental rights, including the right to life and dignity, especially for those who cannot fully comprehend the implications of their decisions.
