SANTHARA: A CRUEL END OR DIGNIFIED ENDING?

Abstract

India is a secular State. The idea of secularism is implicit in our Preamble which ensures every citizens “liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship”. Article 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution ensures the Freedom of free profession, practice and propagation of religion. 

However, Article 25(1) imposes restrictions on its freedom. It says that no act in the name of religion can be done which is against public order, morality and health of the public.

India, being a land of various religions, the practices followed in every religion should be in accordance to the law and the laws should not be biased against any particular religion. The paper starts with the introducing Santhara that is being practiced by the various followers of Jainism. This practise has always been challenged and compared with Suicide which is regarded as “an illegal act” and is subjected to punishment. The paper uses Rogerian method to analyse the argument and considers cross fires between both the sides of the argument. The paper reverts the original definition of “essential practice doctrine” as visualised by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly debates determining whether the practice of the religions is considered to be “essential”  or not. There should be a clear distinction between the religious act and a secular practice. In order to distinguish between the two, the judiciary should intervene and stop any such practice which is hampering the societal and any right guaranteed by the Constitution.