Samriddhi Gupta, Indian Institute of Management, Rohtak
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Santhara, a voluntary vow of fasting till death in Jainism, has prompted heated legal and ethical arguments in India. Santhara is seen by the Jain community as a road to purification and liberation, representing a calm acceptance of death in pursuit of moksha. However, its junction with India's legal structure, especially Article 21 of the Constitution, which protects the right to life and personal liberty, poses complicated issues. The primary question in the discussion is whether Santhara should be legally recognized as a religious practice or considered suicide.
The Rajasthan High Court's decision, which found Santhara non-essential to Jainism, demonstrates how complex the topic is. This decision has sparked debate about whether the state has the authority to control religious activities, particularly when public health, morality, and the sanctity of life are at issue. This legal challenge forces Santhara practitioners to strike a difficult balance between their spiritual convictions and broader societal norms, especially since Article 25 of the Indian Constitution guarantees religious freedom subject to restrictions imposed in the interests of public order, morality, and health. The vagueness surrounding the "essential practices" concept complicates matters further, with judges tasked with determining what constitutes a basic religious activity worthy of constitutional protection. This case demonstrates the conflict between religious freedom and the state's obligation to preserve life. A detailed investigation of Santhara's legal and ethical elements is critical for understanding the societal impact of recognising or forbidding it.
Comments