Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

20. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents have passionately defended the Santhara as an inseparable tenets of Jain religion. They have tried to connect it with the way of life and source to attain moksha, which is the ultimate purpose of Jain religion. Shri P.C.Bhandari has explained to us in great detail as to how the Santhara is practiced reciting the Mantras and narrating the stages of attaining the Santhara with reverence. He submits that it is a highest order in Jain religion. He has explained to us the manner in which the vow of Santhara is taken and has recited the slokas in a loud voice in the Court, to the amusement of the general public sitting in the Court. It is submitted by him that Article 25 has no application to an essential religious practice and has relied upon the decision in Gian Kaur V/s State of Punjab (JT 1996(3) SC 339), in which the Supreme Court has protected the right to die by a person, who is terminally ill or in persistent vegetative state to terminate his life and though setting aside the declaration of law in P.Rathinam/Nagbhusham Patnaik V/s Union of India (JT 1994(3) SC 394), raising a doubt in the case of terminally ill or for a person in persistent vegetative state to be permitted physician assisted termination and keeping the argument open, which was tried to be addressed by the Supreme Court in Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug V/s Union of India & ors. ((2011) 4 SCC 454).

21 In this writ petition filed in public interest, we are concerned with the short question as to whether the practice of Santhara/Sallekhana practised by the Shvetambaras group of Jain religion is an essential tenet of the Jain religion protected by the right to religion under Article 25 of the Constitution of India.

22. Shri Madhav Mitra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Jain community is divided into two groups of Digambara and Shvetambara. The Santhara, a religious fast unto death, is prevalent in Shvetambara, whereas a similar kind of fast called Sallekhana in the Digambara. The Santhara is a kind of self-emulation, wherein the person adopting it starts fast to achieve the goal of death in which he stopped consuming food, water and medicines. It is nothing but suicide under the garb of religious beliefs. No individual has a right to take his own life. The Supreme Court in Gian Kaur Vs. State of Punjab (supra) held that Section 309 IPC is valid and not violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The right to life does not include the right to die. The right to human dignity does not include the right to terminate natural life and it has over-ruled the previous judgment of its own Court in P.Rathinam V/s Union of India (supra).

23. It is submitted that in Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug V/s Union of India & ors. (supra), the Supreme Court held that both euthanasia and assisted suicide are not lawful in India. The right to life does not include the right to die and that euthanasia could be lawful only by legislation. Both the abetment of suicide under Article 306 IPC and attempt to commit suicide in Section 309 IPC are criminal offence. Section 309 IPC is constitutionally valid. It was held in Gian Kaur's case (supra) that the debate to permit physician-assisted termination of life is inconclusive. The euthanasia is of two types; active and passive. The active euthanasia entails the use of lethal substances or forces to kill a person. The passive euthanasia entails withholding of medical treatment for continuance of life, withholding of antibiotics where without giving it a patient is likely to die, or removing the heart lung machine, from a patient in coma. Both the methods are illegal without legislature, provided certain conditions and safeguards are maintained. Generally, the euthanasia may be voluntary and non-voluntary. The voluntary euthanasia is where the consent is taken from the patient, whereas non-voluntary euthanasia is where the consent is unavailable, when the patient is in coma, or is otherwise unable to give consent. In voluntary passive euthanasia a person, who is capable of deciding for himself decides that he would prefer to die which may be for various reasons including unbearable pain or that he does not have the money for his treatment. He consciously and out of his free-will refused to take life saving medicines. The Supreme Court held that in India, if a person consciously and voluntarily refuses to take life saving treatment, it is not a crime, but whether not taking food consciously and voluntarily with the aim of ending one's life is a crime under section 309 IPC is a question, which need not be decided in the case. After considering the question of non-voluntary passive euthanasia, the Supreme Court laid down certain guidelines for the procedure for permitting death, under certain conditions. The Supreme Court laid down a procedure detailing the conditions for such action till the Act is enacted by the Parliament. The procedure provides for a decision to be taken by the patients to discontinue life support or the spouse or other close relatives and in their absence by a person next or by the doctors attending the patient. The decision must be bonafide and thereafter, approval must be sought from the High Court by filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court in such case acts as parens patriae. The matter should be decided by atleast two Judges. The Bench will constitute a Committee of three reputed doctors after consulting such medical authorities/medical practitioners, preferably comprising of a Neurologist, Psychiatrist and Physician. The report of the Committee is to be made available to the patients and his close relatives to obtain their views and thereafter, the High Court should give its decision assigning reasons, keeping in view the best interest of the patient.

24. It is submitted that although in Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug V/s Union of India (supra), the Supreme Court left the question as to whether not taking food consciously and voluntarily with the aim to end one's life is a crime, the substance of the judgments in Gian Kaur (supra) and Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug (supra) is that no person has a right to take his own life consciously, as the right to life does not include the right to end the life voluntarily.

25. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that even the act committed with the consent of the individual to end his/her life is punishable under the Indian Penal Code. The offence of murder under section 300 IPC prohibits exception, which goes to show that such an act may not amount to murder, but would be termed as culpable homicide. Section 92 precisely relates to medical practitioners wherein the act done in good faith for the benefit of a person, without consent has also been made a criminal act punishable under the law of the land.