SANTHARA: A Custom In Question

Must Read

Ed-Tech Companies and the Consumer Protection Act

In the present time when the whole country is getting back to normal after the wrath of the Coronavirus,...

The Right to Information and its Working of 15 years

On 12th October 2020, RTI finished fifteen years since its commencement. The question remains whether the legislation stands up to...

An Insight into Custodial Death in India

“The occurrence of Custodial deaths in the world’s greatest democracy has raised the eyebrows of every citizen and shaken...

Implications in Travel Insurance in Light of the COVID-19 Crisis

As the world, today is crippled by this once in a century pandemic and as of date more than...

Second-Round Effects of Rent Control Laws: The Argentine Case

Introduction In colonial India, a city had an issue with its cobra population, which was a problem clearly in need...

Why Are the Big Techs of Silicon Valley Accused of Anti-Competitive Behaviours?

The big tech giants of the Silicon Valley are facing major challenges with relation to their monopolistic powers after...

Follow us

India is a land of religions and customs, though the recent developments in India have kept the religion and growth at equal level, which was not there fifty years back. After our independence in 1947, massive developments have taken place in our country but the religious customs and beliefs are still being practiced as a part and parcel of our lives in India. None of the religious communities appreciate Judiciary or any other third party interfering and fidgeting with their customary laws and changing the laws that were followed by them since time immemorial. The perfect example of the same is the after math of the Shah Bano Decision, where there was a huge protest by the Muslims in India after the Hon’ble Supreme Court gave a decision that was against the Muslim personal laws in India, after which there was a huge uproar in the Muslim community which forced the Rajiv Gandhi government to enact The Muslim Woman (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 thereby nullifying the Shah Bano Decision.

That was 1986, but today we are facing a similar state of affairs with respect to the Jain community in India. The paradigm of confusion and chaos started after the Rajasthan High Court, gave an order in the matter of Nikhil Soni vs. Union of India, a PIL filed by the activist lawyer Ms. Nikhil Soni, with respect to banning of the practice of Santhara amongst the Jain community in India. The court gave an order on 10th of August 2015 which brought an uproar amongst the Jain communities all over India.

‘Santhara’ is a religious ritual prevalent amongst the Jains. It is a customary practice that allows a Jain to fast until death and is believed that it is one of the ways to attain ‘moksha’. The judgment of the Rajasthan High Court is basically based on two premises, one being, that the Constitution of India does not guarantee the right to die and hence it is not under Article 21 of the Constitution and secondly, the custom being a custom that is not an essential custom in Jainism and hence not protected by Article 25 of the Constitution.

While giving an opinion upon the custom being a proper custom, the Rajasthan High Court used the clause ‘essential test’ in its order and quoted that, the Santhara as a religious custom has not been found in the texts and scriptures. The essential test is the basic test in determining whether a community has followed a custom in the past continuously or not and if there is not enough evidence to prove that there has been a continuous follow up of the custom, the custom is not considered a valid one. Hence, it cannot be guaranteed under the Article 25 as it is not essential for a Jain to observe the same.

The term ‘essential’ has been turned and twisted with time to address the changes in the society. In The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, it was held by the Apex court that essential custom of a religion will be whatever the doctrines and tenets of the religion prescribe. Where as in Qureshi v. State of Bihar, the court took a different approach and said that, for Muslims the cutting of a cow isn’t an essential form of custom. This is how the courts have interpreted the word ‘essential’ since 1957 and now it is narrowed to courts analogy on finding what is ‘essential’ based on the texts and the practices being followed. Here, the court has rightly interpreted the text and has adopted a paternalistic outlook rather than being simply intrinsic the term essential, and concluded that Santhara is not an essential practice for the Jains as per the religious texts of Jainism.As per the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), it is an offence to take away one’s life voluntarily, the act is also termed as suicide, and the custom of Santhara being an act where a person voluntarily gives away the life, the Honourable Supreme Court of India, in its various judgments, has taken up the matter of self-killing and has opined that such acts are illegal. Though the court in P. Ratinam v. Union of India, deviated a little, saying that, a person, if he has a right to live, he has also the right to die. But the same was reversed in Gyan Kaur v. State of Punjab where it was stated by the court that, death cannot be considered at par with life and there has to be a distinction between them.

In India religion plays an important role in governing the lives of the people. Religion is a way of life here and is imbedded in the minds and hearts of the people. Whereas the Constitution is the protector of the rights of the people in the State. It is that statute which is considered as the law of the land and any law or act against the Constitution stands to be invalid. It is an agreed presumption that the religious practice of Santhara by the Jain has a major significance in the religionist philosophies, but such act cannot be entertained if it is against the basic rights of the people. Being a State, where welfare of the people is considered aa a top priority, practices of Santhara cannot be entertained in today’s society. Giving a plain reading of the Article 25 of the Constitution, we see a valid presumption that every individual has a right to practice, profess, and propagate his religion, but this application of law has to be in consonance with Article 21 of the Constitution, where the act does not curtail some one’s life unnaturally though the person is in taking the last breath of his life. The religious practice should be subject to other fundamental rights and morality of the society. Jurisprudence says, self-killing is as per the choice and liberty of the person but still it is penalised. The sole reason behind this is that it would disturb the morality of the State and the people. Hence, each religious act should not be against the morals of the society and maintain a decorum in relation to social peace and harmony.

The High Court in the current case has rightly interpreted the case as such acts will favour immoral behaviour and unevenness in the State. The situation of this custom is similar to that of Sati, which was forbidden. As Santhara was also found against the morality guarded by the State, the Court took necessary steps and banned Santhara under Section 306 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code.

Latest News

Bombay High Court Passes Order To Clarify and Modify Previous Order When State of Maharashtra Moved Praecipe

Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Shrikant D. Kulkarni had passed an Order on 25th October...

The European Court of Human Rights Orders Germany To Pay Non-Pecuniary Damages for Prison Strip-Searches 

A serving German prisoner was repeatedly stripped searched for non-legitimate purposes. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found that Germany had violated the...

Lack of Independent Witness Doesn’t Vitiate Conviction: Supreme Court

A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Dhiman v State of Himachal Pradesh clarified the law in case of lack of independent...

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi, called for records of the...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent on immigrants to comply with. Background The...

Supreme Court Stays Order Restraining Physical Campaigns in the Madhya Pradesh Bye-Elections

On the 26th of October, a Bench was set up which comprised Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and Justice Sanjiv Khanna. They heard...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention order of the husband of...

Supreme Court Asks Petitioner to Approach Bombay High Court in PIL for CBI Probe in Disha Salian Case

On the 26th of October 2020, the Apex Court heard the PIL praying for a CBI probe into the death of Disha Salian. The...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions, as well as shareholder disputes...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by P. Sankar & V. Sobana....

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -