Sallekhana: The Jain Approach to Dignified Death

By Christopher Key Chapple and Shagun Chand Jain

Jainism regards life to be eternal. Recognizing that the soul can never die, but merely takes a new body, a careful tradition welcoming death through intentional fasting developed more than two thousand years ago. A legal challenge Rajasthan was put forward in 2013, suggesting that this practice is harmful and coercive and targets women in particular. For a short while SallekhanÀ, which means the “thinning of existence,” was declared illegal. In response to this controversy, three conferences were convened by the International School for Jain Studies to explore the legal, religious, and medical aspects of this practice. Experts discussed the long history of the practice, attested to in epigraphs throughout India; the ways in which fasting to death has become an acceptable practice in the Western world; and contemporary instances of its observance in India. This volume presents an interdisciplinary approach to thinking about the end of life, from biomedical, historical, religious, and legal perspectives. 

• Language: English
• Publisher: D.K. Printworld
• Release date: Sep 23, 2022
• ISBN: 9788124611791

Book preview

Front_Cover.jpg

Sallekhanā

Sallekhanā

The Jain Approach to Dignified Death

Edited by

Shugan Chand Jain

Christopher Key Chapple

Cataloging in Publication Data — DK

[Courtesy: D.K. Agencies (P) Ltd. ]

Sallekhanā : the Jain approach to dignified death /

edited by Shugan Chand Jain and Christopher Key

Chapple.

pages cm

Includes bibliographical references.

ISBN 9788124610480

1. Sallekhanā. 2. Right to die — Law and legislation —

India. I. Jain, Shugan Chand, editor. II. Chapple,

Christopher Key, 1954- editor.

LCC BL1375.S26S25 2020 | DDC 294.423 23

ISBN: 978-81-246-1048-0 (Hardcover)

ISBN: 978-81-246-1179-1 (E-book)

First edition published in 2020

© International School of Jain Studies, New Delhi

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior written permission of both the copyright owner, indicated above, and the publisher.

Printed and published by:

D.K. Printworld (P) Ltd.

Regd. Office: Vedaśrī, F-395, Sudarshan Park

(Metro Station: ESI Hospital) New Delhi - 110015

Phones: [phone], 2546 6019

e-mail: [e-mail]

Web: www.dkprintworld.com

Preface

This

book arose from contemporary concerns regarding the end of life. Death is an inevitable fact of life. Jain preceptors have offered a system of fasting that makes the time before death an auspicious and pleasant experience, known as sallekhanā, samādhi-maraṇa or santhārā. This practice had been observed ever since Jainism was propagated by the founding tīrthaṁkaras. The eighth Jain canon, the Antakr̥tdaśāṅga-sūtra, describes this practice being observed even before Mahāvīra (sixth century

bce

). Archaeological evidence at Śravaṇa Beḷgoḷā attests to this practice in the third century

bce

as seen in the caves there of Emperor Candragupta Maurya and Śrutakevalī Bhadrabāhu.

In 2006, non-Jain lawyers approached the courts to ban the practice of fasting unto to death by equating it to suicide. In response, the International School for Jain Studies organized three international seminars on this practice, convening philosophers at the University of Madras, lawyers at National Law University, Delhi and medical practitioners at Teerthanker Mahaveer University Medical College at Moradabad to discuss this practice from their respective viewpoints.

Modern Western culture has regarded death to be an evil occurrence, and has, through medical technology, managed to prolong lifespan. Recently, there has been an interest in India in embracing the postponement of death. Ironically, the Western world affirms the legal right to suspend nutrition and hydration, and, in some instances, has legalized the hastening of death through medical means.

This book explores the Jain tradition of celebrating the final fast as well as its emergence as best practice worldwide. We hope this book provides a context for understanding the age-old Indian tradition of the voluntary termination of life.

We are deeply grateful to the many people who helped with the launch of the conference and this book, starting with Uma Jain and Maureen Shannon-Chapple. At Loyola Marymount University, Jensen Martin was instrumental in copy editing the first versions of the chapters. At the International School for Jain Studies, Dr Navin Srivastav, Mr Sushil Jana and Ms Jyoti Pandey were instrumental in the launch of the conferences and the work required to prepare this book. Special thanks to Dr Shrinetra Pandey, Joint Director of International School for Jain Studies, who has been central to the preparation of the final editing of the book. We hope that readers find this work interesting and useful.

Shugan C. Jain

Christopher Key Chapple

Contents

Preface

Introduction

Shugan C. Jain

Christopher Key Chapple

Part One: Legal Aspect

1. Sallekhanā on Trial

Whitny Braun

2. To Be or Not to Be?: Philosophical and Constitutional Perspectives on the Right to Die

Ananth Acharya

3. Suffer not the Suffering:An Examination of the Jain Practice of Sallekhanā

Purushottama Bilimoria

4. Legality of the End of Life

D.R. Mehta and Kusum Jain

5. A Study of Sallekhanā as an Art of Living Attracting No Legal Attention

Panachand Jain

Part Two: Medical Aspect

6. Bioethics and Medico-Legal Approaches to Ritualized End-of-Life Fasting and Immobilization Practices in India: Jain Sallekhanā and Buddhist Tukda

Sean Hillman

7. Practice of Modified Sallekhanā: Acceptance of Death

Nitin Shah

8. The Role of Dharma Jāgaraṇa for Sallekhanā

Reshma Bhansali

Part Three: Philosophical Aspect

9. Eternal Life, Death and Dying in Jainism

Christopher Key Chapple

10. Relevance of Sallekhanā/Samādhi-maraṇa in Today’s Society

D.S. Baya

11. The Final Fast in the Eighth Aṅga: The Antakr̥tadaśāṅgasūtra

Priyadarshana Jain and Rajal Borundia Jain

12. The Jain Approach to Death and New Life

Shugan C. Jain

APPENDIX I

APPENDIX II

APPENDIX III

APPENDIX IV

Contributors

Consolidated Bibliography

Index

Introduction

Shugan C. Jain

Christopher Key Chapple

M

ost

of religious leaders, sociologists and other experts talk of the art of living a peaceful and happy life. Many doctors and scientists talk about and work to find ways out to live a longer, healthier and more enjoyable life. However, one must be mindful that death is inevitable. One who is born has to die some day. Indian religions consider death as an event when the soul gives up its inefficient body and moves on to a new one. When the body becomes old and weak or ill, unable even to perform its daily chores and follow religious duties, a person naturally longs for the transition into death, like changing clothes after one’s daily bath. Indian religious traditions encourage withdrawing (nivr̥tti) from worldly activities and getting totally absorbed in God or one’s own pure self while approaching death.

The topic of death is being widely discussed. Does a person have a right to choose the manner of his/her death? Is mercy-killing in the form of euthanasia acceptable? A number of countries have legalized euthanasia with certain conditions. A few more countries are considering whether the right to die should be declared legal. On the medical front, every day the number of people suffering in hospitals and kept alive on life support systems is increasing. This increases the suffering of families who also must deal with often huge economic costs.

The ancient practice of sallekhanā/samādhi-maraṇa/santhārā advocates a final fast to achieve a dignified death. This gained a great deal of intention in 2006. Keila Devi Hirawat, at the age of 93, announced her intention to invite death by this traditional practice. Human rights activist and lawyer Nikhil Soni and his lawyer Madhav Mishra filed a restraining order (PIL) in the Rajasthan High Court to stop her action. One of the concerns raised in the petition was that allowing old people to undertake santhārā causes suffering and that withdrawing medical assistance, food and water is inhumane. The activist and his lawyer claimed the santhārā ritual is a social evil and should be considered as suicide.

Everyone fears the pains of birth and death. Pain is inevitable. No one can change this law. However, the body is the means and not the end. The body is a means to attain liberation. One eventually has to leave the body. No one wants to die in pain or agony. People want to die smoothly and peacefully. The possibility of a peaceful death in Indian tradition is based on strong faith in the eternality of soul. Death is considered to be a process through which the soul leaves an old and less efficient body to enter a new and more efficient and desirable body in order to continue in the transmigration cycle. According to Indian thought, the goal is ultimately to exit from the transmigration cycle to the eternal state of Bliss called mokṣa (liberation). Indian traditions have developed many end of life practices such as samādhi prāyopaveśa in Hindu tradition, phowā in Buddhist tradition and sallekhanā/samādhi-maraṇa/santhārā in Jain tradition. These have been practised since ancient times to achieve a peaceful transition of the soul from its old and inefficient body to a new and better body. The goal is to ultimately achieve liberation. The concept of death as found in India differs from the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam where the soul and body are clubbed together and the death implies end of present life. In these traditions, there can be no return for another life as human being. After death, one enters either a heavenly or a hellish existence.

The end of life choices in Jainism are rooted in three main world views: consequences of action (karma), possibility of liberation (mokṣa) and non-violence (ahiṁsā) as a path of liberation. Karma is the net consequence of good and bad deeds in a person’s life and determines the nature of the next life. Ongoing accumulation of bad karma prevents mokṣa from the cycle of rebirth. Depending on the state of delusion, attachment and passions of the dying person, a natural and normal death is classified in five categories in Jain scriptures (Bhagavatī Ārādhanā 26):

i. Bāla-bāla-maraṇa (the death of a non-believer)

ii. Bāla-maraṇa (the death of an ignorant/child)

iii. Bāla-paṇḍita-maraṇa (death of a believer observing the vows partially, i.e. death with equanimity)

iv. Paṇḍita-maraṇa (death of a monk observing samādhi-maraṇa)

v. Paṇḍita-paṇḍita-maraṇa (death of a Jina).

In some instances, death can also be accidental, or due to natural calamities, or illness due to the activation of inauspicious karmas (pāpa karma).

Saṁlekhanā/Sallekhanā, Samādhi-maraṇa and

Santhārā, as per Jain Holy Literature

Sallekhanā is a combination of sat (in a proper manner) plus lekhanā (to thin or reduce the passion and body systematically as per religious texts, i.e. to reduce and annihilate passions (internal) along with the physical body (external) at a faster rate when the death becomes imminent (Sarvārthasiddhi 7.22). To achieve this, the practitioner increases meditation on his pure self, gradually reduces the intake of food and drinks from external sources along with reduction of activities of body (i.e. stay put at one place) and speech as well. Further, the practitioner of sallekhanā should be free from a desire to live longer or to die quickly and should be free of any desire to linger with reminiscences of friends or family or re-enjoyments of past experiences.

Synonyms for saṁlekhanā¹ include santhārā, saṁnyāsa, samādhi, nirupādhi and vīriya-maraṇa. These words all imply a process of achieving the stoppage of new karma (saṁvara) and annihilating the bonded karmas as much and fast as possible when the person approaches death. The distinctions between some of these terms can be summarized as follows:

1. Sallekhanā is a vow to thin and annihilate the passions along with the physical body at a faster rate so as to prepare for peaceful and pious death. In a positive sense, we can say that sallekhanā is a vow to maintain a healthy attitude in regard to one’s physicality, mental state and spirituality during the natural process of death.

2. Samādhi-maraṇa implies the practitioner seeks to be in a state which is beyond disease (vyādhi) and identification with title (upādhi).

3. Santhārā entails a state of mind when the practitioner realizes that death is near and he or she wishes to welcome the transition in solitude. Accordingly, one would lie down on a bed of dry hay in a lonely clean and calm place and reduce food and water intake. The person stops all activities of mind, body and speech until death. This term is used in Śvetāmbara texts.

Practising sallekhanā is voluntary and needs permission of one’s guru, family and other members of the society. Thus, sallekhanā requires preparation over an extended period to enhance self-control and equanimity and be able to observe samādhi-maraṇa/santhārā when death is very close. To practise santhārā, one can say that the prior observance of sallekhanā is a priority. It can also be stated that samādhi-maraṇa/santhārā is the end point of successful practice of sallekhanā.

On 10 August 2015 (Monday), the Honourable Rajasthan High Court ruled that the Jain practice of "voluntary and systematic fasting to death was illegal, since it amounted to abetment to suicide, which is criminalized under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court said: Santhārā on account of religion can be treated as suicide and a case should be lodged as per the law." This decision of the Rajasthan High Court caused a major unification of all Jains because this judgment hurt the very roots of their religion. Hence, Jains collectively approached Supreme Court for a hearing of the case. The Supreme Court on Tuesday (1 September 2015) restored the Jain religious practice of a ritualistic fast unto death by staying the order of the Rajasthan High Court, which compared it to an act of suicide. A three-judge Bench, headed by Chief Justice of India H.L. Dattu, stayed the 10 August 2015 (Monday) order of a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court on the basis of petitions filed by members of the Jain community.

The petitions complained that the High Court, based on incorrect observations on Jainism, criminalized the philosophy and essential practice of sallekhanā/santhārā, a fundamental component of the Jain principle of non-violence (ahiṁsā). The court issued notice to the centre and the state government of Rajasthan on the question raised in the petitions whether essential and integral parts of a religion can be restricted by the state. The petitions said the High Court order infringed on secularism. It criminalized santhārā without even consulting any scholars of Jainism or findings to substantiate that the practice was against public health, morality and order, they said.

The International School for Jain Studies (ISJS) has been actively promoting academic studies of Jainism in the universities of the world since 2005. Scholars affiliated with ISJS regard the controversy over the practice of santhārā as examples of

1. conflict between law and religion,

2. raising issues of individual freedom and personal liberty as well as a minority community’s religious rights, and

3. an attempt of state intervention in matters of religion.

It seemed clear that the Rajasthan High Court made its decision without consultation with academic community of Jainism. Hence, ISJS, in conjunction with Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, organized a series of academic workshops and seminars on the subject of sallekhanā/samādhi-maraṇa/santhārā to develop a better understanding of the Jain concept of death, exploring ways of achieving a dignified death in Indian philosophical traditions in general and Jainism in particular. Adopting a true pluralistic (anekāntikā) approach, it was decided to analyse in depth this subject from philosophical, historical, legal, jurisprudence, social, political and medical aspects. Another factor included in the objectives of the seminars was to explore if the doctrine of sallekhanā/samādhi-maraṇa/santhārā gives some directives to improve mental and spiritual health, preparing the dying person to welcome death.

In preparation for these conversations, a one-day workshop was convened on 19 December 2015, at Bhagwan Mahavira Memorial Trust, New Delhi to discuss the doctrinal aspects of Jainism and Hinduism regarding death. This provided an insight into the metaphysical aspects of sallekhanā and prāyopaveśa.

The first major gathering, attended by more than 250 guests, convened at the University of Madras in Chennai, Tamil Nadu on 18 and 19 February 2016. Papers were presented by thirty philosophy and religion experts. This included philosophical studies and was partly financed by the Indian Council for Philosophical Research, New Delhi.

The second gathering took place at National Law University, New Delhi with financial support from Bashi Ram Biro Devi Charitable Trust, Delhi on 26 and 27 February 2016. Twenty advocates, judges and academicians, including sociologists, discussed legal, jurisprudence, social and political aspects of the final fast. More than 100 people participated.

Teerthanker Mahaveer University Medical College, Moradabad hosted and supported the third gathering on 5 March, 2016. A dozen experts including several physicians discussed health and medical aspects of fasting-unto-death. More than 125 persons attended the event.

The workshop and seminars were conducted with expertise being contributed by more than seventy scholars and professionals, of which ten were from overseas. Brief particulars of the speakers can be found in Appendix A. Dr P. Billimoria from USA came a month before the seminar and gave a presentation to ISJS which was video recorded. The experts, who sent their papers in advance, included advocates from the Supreme Court, social and legal activists, a producer of an award-winning documentary on the subject, practising doctors and scientists, as well as scholars of ethics, philosophy, religion and sociology. More than 500 persons attended the seminars at three places.

The discussions at the three universities were as follows:

University of Madras

Religion/Faith-based perspectives

a. Jain Religion

i. Definitions of sallekhanā, samādhi-maraṇa and santhārā were given as well as explanations of doctrine in both Śvetāmbara and Digambara texts and practice. Topics included investigation of motivations, types of fasts, milestones recognized in the process, duration of the final fast and other issues.

ii. Information was presented on eligibility for the final fast and processes for its authorization.

iii. Conversation took place on the nature of the final fast. Is the practice one way or reversible?

iv. Case studies from families with member/s who observed this practice were presented, as well as reflections from neighbours.

v. A field survey was given of those who observed this practice in last fifty years.

b. Perspectives on Death in Other Religions (Hindu, Buddhist, Sikhism, Christianity, Islam):

i. The final fast was compared and contrasted with other approaches. Specific activities like practice such as satī, jauhara, kāśī karavaṭa, muktidhāma and so forth in these religions were being examined.

National Law University, Delhi

Legal and jurisprudential and

Social–political–economic perspectives

a. Legal and Jurisprudential Perspectives

i. IPC Sections 306 (attempts to commit suicide) and 309 (abetment to suicide).

ii. Colonial-era criminal laws vs Indian traditions and modern trends.

iii. Constitutional precedents like right to life and death; religious freedom of minorities and Articles 21, 25, 26, 29 of the Constitution of India.

iv. Perspectives of the judicial systems.

b. Social–Political–Economic Perspectives

i. Moral and ethical considerations, risks/gains and dangers/benefits; social and individual perspectives.

ii. Economic and marketing angle.

iii. Effect of religious and ethnic diversity and approaches towards life and death in the globalized world.

iv. The contrast — killing others vs santhārā.

Teerthanker Mahaveer University, Moradabad

Medical Perspective

a. Applicability of this practice, i.e. who and when one can start the practice? What are the benefits and pitfalls?

b. Applicability of the practice as preventive system

i. to solve some medical problems like reducing the pain and suffering of patients,

ii. its usage in palliative care and patient care in general, as well as strategies to seek involvement of the family,

iii. medical practitioners and nursing/administrative staff and religious leaders in the decision-making process.

c. Psychological distinction between the mental state of a person with suicidal tendency and a person going through the process of santhārā.

d. Stretching life vs quality of life.

e. Mental conditioning through lifelong practice of self-control, fasting, penance, etc.

The chapters of this book are grouped according to themes, starting with Part I addressing the question of legality with five papers, followed by Part II that examines the medical aspects and finally the religious and decidedly Jain approach with four papers in Part III.

The first part deals with the legal issues surrounding the practice of fasting until death. It opens with an examination of the topic by Whitny Braun, a bioethicist at Loma Linda University, who discusses the lawsuits brought against the practice in Rajasthan and an example of its enactment in the United States. She sets the frame for the book by posting the question "Is sallekhanā/santhārā an archaic remnant of India’s social history or a legitimate exercise of the freedom of religion?" Ananth Acharya, a professor of Law, argues against the banning of sallekhanā from the perspective of the primacy of rational self-determination over governmental mandates.

Purushottama Bilimoria, professor at the Center for Dharma Studies at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, California, and convener of a major conference on sallekhanā in India in 1991, summarizes the debates on the relationship between the private and public spheres, raising the issue of human agency, one’s obligation to the society, and one’s personal desires to exert control under the protection of privacy up until the point of death. He discusses the difference between euthanasia, which requires external agency, and the final fast, which is self-generated. He notes, as does Braun, that as long as suicide itself remains forbidden in India, the Jain practice will continue to come under scrutiny. Social activist D.R. Mehta and Kusum Jain of the University of Rajasthan examine the underlying definition of the human person in Jain legal traditions, reiterating the difference between euthanasia and the final fast. In the closing segment of this section, Panachand Jain gives a detailed and comprehensive history of Article 309, the section of IPC that makes suicide a punishable offence.

The second segment of the book examines medical aspects of embarking upon the final fast. Sean Hillman of the University of Toronto raises several interesting issues in his chapter, including the suggestion that some checks-and-balances might be added to the tradition above and beyond the traditional requirements for entering the final fast. These include the establishment of an oversight committee that will assess the mental outlook of the individual, ensure that the act is fully voluntary, and that the individual is fully aware and informed of what to expect in the process. Because the practice of medically-assisted entry into death is now legal in Canada and in many areas of North America, Hillman suggests that India might learn from the legal approach used outside of India. He also notes that in the final fast, medicine is generally not employed. He also quotes scientists who assert that death by withdrawal of hydration is clinically relatively pain free. Hillman, in comparing the Jain practice with the lesser-known Tibetan Buddhist practice of meditating into death, suggests that such practices as announcing and celebrating the decision of an individual to engage in the final fast can be off-putting to non-Jains. He suggests curtailing publicity. Nitin Shah, a practising anaesthesiologist and professor of medicine, shares the story of the passing of three close family members. He urges the adoption of approaching death in a manner that accepts of its inevitability and accords dignity to the individual and the individual’s family members. He urges re-thinking the over-medicalization of death. Reshma Bhansali describes an active hospice-like movement in south India that combines modern methods of allowing a peaceful departure from the body with insights and inspirations provided by prayer and community support.

In the third and final part of the book, Chapple gives an overview of the Jain cosmological world view and ethical practices. He also describes the contemporary practice of sallekhanā in India and North America. D.S. Baya summarizes his documentation of 350 instances of sallekhanā over a period of ten years, noting that the practice is not limited to the elderly (though rare among young people) and that the practice is widespread. Priyadarshana Jain and Rajal Borundia Jain examine the Antakr̥tadaśāṅgasūtra, a Jain canonical text, that documents more than ninety sallekhanā accounts and specifies how the fast unto death must be approached and implemented. Finally, Shugan C. Jain surveys the practice of sallekhanā over the course of history into the present, concluding that to disallow its practice would violate constitutional guarantees of religious freedom.

Appendix I contains brief of papers presented by various speakers at the three seminars. Appendix II contains twenty-four points that differentiate sallekhanā from suicide. Appendix III includes the hymn called Samādhi Bhāvanā that Jains recite in north India particularly almost daily, yearning for an auspicious death. Appendix IV includes newspaper articles about the various court cases.

---

¹ Mahavir Mission, February 1988, p. 68.

Part One

Legal Aspect

1

Sallekhanā on Trial

Whitny Braun

On

5 September 2006 human rights attorney Nikhil Soni and criminal law attorney Madhav Mitra filed Civil Writ Petition No. 7416 in the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at the Jaipur Bench. This writ, also known as a public interest litigation (PIL) represented the first formal legal complaint against sallekhanā and santhārā in Indian history. The synopsis to the court read:

Petitioner is challenging a practice prevalent in Śvetāmbara Jain Community known as sallekhanā or santhārā wherein a person adopting above would go for religious fast until his or her death, being out and out contrary to the prevalent law of the land.¹

The public interest litigation was filed before the Honourable Chief Justice Sacchidanand Jha and his fellow judges of the Rajasthan High Court and made the argument that Nikhil Soni as petitioner, concerned with the well-being of the public and ethically bound to act in response to any wrong committed, exercised his right under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to file a complaint against the practice of sallekhanā.

This case instigated an immediate media frenzy engaged in the discussion of whether or not sallekhanā truly had a place in the modern Indian state. The question were, 1. either the ritual is an archaic remnant of India’s social history 2. does the ritual constitute a legitimate exercise of the freedom of religion that the Indian democracy prides itself on protecting?

Historically, sallekhanā has been accepted by the religiously diverse population of India as well as by the British during the colonial period because it was accepted as part of the fabric of society. But in the twentieth century euthanasia and attempted suicide became criminal offences. As a member of the British Commonwealth, India has a legal system based in large part on of the precedents and jurisprudence of British Common Law. Suicide has been a criminal offence in British law since the sixth century

ce

and that law was not repealed until 1961 (Davies 2005: 160). However, India did not follow suit and suicide as a crime against the state remains in force to this day.

Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) stipulates that suicide attempts can be punished by up to one year in prison (Gaur 2011: 555). In the 1996 case of Gian Kaur vs State of Punjab² the Indian Supreme Court ruled that human rights guaranteed by the constitution do not include the right to suicide under any circumstance, though sallekhanā was not specifically mentioned and this ambiguity in the law set the stage for the 2006 PIL (Mani 2003).

On 19 August 2013 the Mental Health Care Bill was introduced to the Rajya Sabha³ and would serve to limit the parameters of the prosecution of attempted suicide. The Bill states in Article 124, that

Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, any person who attempts to commit suicide shall be presumed, unless proved otherwise, to be suffering from mental illness at the time of attempting suicide and shall not be liable to punishment under the said section.

The Bill makes one more stipulation that changes the interpretation of suicide to imply that it is the result of mental illness by stating the government shall have the duty to provide medical care to any such person attempting suicide. The Bill, therefore, does not repeal Section 309 of IPC, but merely provides the presumption of mental illness.⁴ Thus, in India today, voluntary end of one’s life is either a criminal offence or proof of mental illness.

Soni and Mitra do not address mental illness in their filing as much as they focus on the social aspects that contribute to individuals choosing to undertake this fast until death. The PIL explains the differentiation between the two major sects within Jainism: the Digambaras and Śvetāmbaras.⁵ While sallekhanā is practised by both sects the case is only lodged against the Śvetāmbaras and describes the act as:

… a religious fast to death under the pretext that when all purposes have been served or when the body becomes unable to serve any purpose the SANTHĀRĀ is adopted in order to obtain ‘Moksha’ (Salvation) wherein they stop (sic) eating and even drinking water and wait for death. Although it is a religious thought but the Law of the Land and The Constitution of India postulate that every person is more important till death for [the] Nation as an Indian. Therefore, nobody has [the] right to kill himself even in any circumstances whatsoever. Meaning thereby ‘santhārā’ is a voluntary suicide. In a case of a ‘santhārā’ when a person thinks he or she is not able to administrate their own body takes fast to death. But illustrations are there when [an] ill person suffering from incurable disease, when patient was on ventilators as well as on such devices without which he cannot survive for a minute, in the eventuality of approaching to the courts, was denied to leave his totally unworkable body and thereby the attempt was termed as asking for legal suicide.⁶

Soni and Mitra assert that the Jain community uses the cover of religion to sanction a form of suicide that would otherwise be illegal and describe how the community collectively aids in the practice to witness the occasion and turn the place of the final fast into a place of pilgrimage. While Soni and Mitra acknowledge that Jains view sallekhanā as a courageous act underpinned by rational thinking they argue that the community glorifies an act that is ultimately criminal and they petition the court to have it deemed an offence in the sense of being an act intended to kill oneself.⁷

The PIL then goes on to list the names and instances of cases of sallekhanā/santhārā they have issue with:

1. Sohan Kumariji took the vow of sallekhanā on 7 October 1993. Her fast lasted for twenty days.

2. Premji Hirji Gala took the vow of sallekhanā in November 1994 and fasted for 212 days.

3. Jethalal Zaveri, in 1997, died after a forty-two day fast.

4. Nirmalananda fasted for three weeks before expiring on 10 January 1997.

5. Haraklalji Bhairulalji Mehta died in October of 2000 in Ahmedabad after a twenty-three-day fast.

6. Sadhvi Nerbhay Vani for twenty days in the Jain temple in Gohana Town. The date was not given.

7. Muni Matiryaji Maharaj, a member of the Terapanth Dharam Sangha, died after a thirty-five-day fast in Udasar near Bikaner in Rajasthan.

The PIL argues that in every one of the incidents listed, the Jain community was complicit in the act of knowingly ending a citizen of the state’s life, and glorifying an act that is in violation of Section 309 of IPC and should result in the offender or offenders being brought before the court of law. Soni and Mitra argue that the essence of suicide is the intent of self-destruction and that act allowing it to take place leads to prevalence of a morbid psychology in the society apart from vitally effecting the kith and kin of the person concerned.⁸

In the seventh point of argument in the PIL Soni and Mitra make the claim that Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the Right to life does not also guarantee the Right to die as was previously determined in the 1996