NIKHIL SONI VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS 

LNIND 2015 RAJ 273

Facts

A writ petition was filed under Section 226 of the Indian Constitution to treat the practice of
“Santhara” or “Sallekhana” as illegal on the grounds that it violates the right to life guaranteed
by the Indian Constitution.

Procedural History

The writ petition was filled by a practicing lawyer who prayed for directions to the Union of
India through Secretary, Department of Home, New Delhi and the State of Rajasthan through
Secretary, Department of Home, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur

The opinion was authored by the Divisional Bench of Rajasthan High Court.

Issue

The issue before the court was to decide whether the practice of “Santhara” was in violation of
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and constitutes an offence punishable under the Indian
Penal Code, 1860.

Rules

● Right to life (Article 21 of the Indian constitution)

● Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion (Article 25
of the Indian Constitution)
● Protection of the Interest of the Minorities (Article 29 of the Indian Constitution)
● Attempt to commit suicide (Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860)
● Abetment of suicide (Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860)

Analysis

“Santhara” is a religious practice of voluntary fasting until death. It is practiced by the Jain
community, a religious minority in India, in order to achieve salvation.
The Rajasthan High Court while determining the legality of the practice of “Santhara” rejected
the claim that Santhara is not an exercise to attain an unnatural death, but is a practice
fundamental to an individual’s moral choice to live with dignity until death. The court said that
Santhara doesn’t constitute an essential religion practice; therefore, it cannot be protected under
Article 25 of the Indian Constitution. The court referring to and relying on the landmark
judgment of “Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab1” held that the right of life guaranteed by the Indian
Constitution under Article 21 doesn’t permit or include the right to take one’s own life and can’t
include the same as an essential religious practice under Article 25. The court also referred to the
case of Aruna Ramchandra Sanbaug V. Union of India2 and equated the practice to assisted
suicide and justified its illegality. However, it is important to note that the Rajasthan High
Court while deciding the case failed to take into consideration the fact that the case of Gian Kaur
dealt with sudden and unnatural extinguishment of life, while, on the other hand, the practice of
Santhara involves death by a gradual and peaceful method.

Since the practice involves voluntary fasting until death, the court considered it an act of self
destruction. If any voluntary act leads to death of an individual it means suicide in usual manner
of speaking. The court made the practice of Santhara punishable under Section 309 and 306 of
Indian Penal Code, which deal with offence of attempting to commit suicide and abetting
suicide, respectively.

Judgment

The Rajasthan high court held the practice of Santhara illegal and punishable under Section 309
of the Indian Penal Code. It was also held that any individual supporting the practice would be
prosecuted for abetting suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

However, the Apex court of India had put a stay on this judgment.

1
(1996) 2 SCC 648
2
(2011) 4 SCC 454