Suhana Roy*
Supply: Indian Specific
This text examines the tragic dying of a three-year-old lady allegedly subjected to Santhara, a non secular fast-unto-death, by means of the lens of kid rights and constitutional legislation. It argues that no parental or non secular consent can override the basic rights of a kid, particularly the suitable to life and dignity. Drawing on Indian jurisprudence, statutory provisions, and worldwide obligations just like the UNCRC, the article highlights authorized gaps and requires higher accountability. It additionally explores the position of parens patriae and constructive legal responsibility in such circumstances. The necessity for sensitization of authorities to differentiate cultural practices from little one hurt is emphasised.
Introduction
On twenty fifth March 2024, information broke out from Indore {that a} three-year-old lady named Viyana Jain had died after collaborating within the Jain ritual of Santhara, a voluntary quick unto dying. Studies counsel she was within the firm of her grandmother and initiated into the non secular observance by a monk. The kid’s dying was glorified in some quarters, together with entries in document books. Nevertheless, civil society, authorized commentators, and little one rights advocates have been alarmed. Is it doable for a kid to participate in such rituals? Can the liberty of faith be used to override the basic proper to life and safety of a minor?
This tragedy brings again to the fore the extremely contentious debate round Santhara/Sallekhana, its constitutionality, and concord with little one rights and prison legislation. On this weblog, we discover the intersection of faith, legislation, and bioethics by means of the lens of this incident, asking whether or not India’s authorized framework adequately safeguards the rights of kids when positioned within the crosshairs of religion and custom.
What Is Santhara/Sallekhana?
Santhara, also called Sallekhana, Samlehnā, or Samādhi-Maraṇa, is a ritual fasting to dying noticed inside Jainism. It entails a voluntary and gradual discount of meals and water consumption, undertaken to purify the soul, detaching from worldly wishes, and destroying karma. Considered as a non secular follow relatively than an act of suicide, Santhara is seen by Jain students as a peaceable, passionless method of embracing dying, distinct from self-harm or violence. Whereas traditionally practiced by each ascetics and laypersons, together with ladies and royalty, Santhara stays uncommon in up to date instances.
The follow was put beneath the judicial limelight in Nikhil Soni v. Union of India, by which the Rajasthan Excessive Court docket in 2015 dominated that Santhara was tantamount to suicide and therefore infringed Sections 108 (abetment of suicide) and Part 226 (try and commit suicide) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Within the ruling, the ritual was in comparison with self-destruction beneath prison legislation. The Supreme Court docket, nonetheless, stayed the Excessive Court docket’s judgment, thus failing to resolve on the authorized standing of Santhara.
Versus euthanasia, which usually is initiated when the affected person is within the final levels of his or her struggling, Santhara is usually carried out even when the particular person just isn’t sick; it’s a voluntary non secular exit. This distinction makes it particularly difficult to investigate within the framework of the standard conceptions of bioethics and legislation throughout the parameters of suicide or medical aid-in-dying.
Santhara and the Indian Structure
Within the authorized argument, there’s a battle between Article 25, which ensures the liberty of conscience and faith, and Article 21, which ensures the suitable to life and private liberty.
Article 25, non secular freedom just isn’t absolute- it’s restricted by public order, morality, and well being. The place the practices are mentioned to be important non secular practices, the State might regulate or prohibit them the place they contradict these grounds. This was confirmed by rulings like Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017), which struck down triple talaq though it’s of non secular origins. Moreover, in youngsters’s conditions, the State takes the position of parens patriae, which is a guardian of all minors. Which means that no parental or non secular consent is superior to the basic rights of a kid or can topic a toddler to irreparable injury. Because the Supreme Court docket held in Laxmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India, the welfare of the kid should be the paramount consideration in such issues, and each effort needs to be made to make sure that the kid grows up in an environment of affection and affection, free from neglect or ethical and emotional abandonment. The Court docket, appearing as parens patriae, should shield the pursuits of the kid.
The Supreme Court docket’s judgments in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996) and Frequent Trigger v. Union of India (2018) reiterate that the suitable to die just isn’t a part of the suitable to life, besides beneath narrowly tailor-made safeguards in passive euthanasia circumstances. Santhara, as a non secular follow involving intentional dying, thus occupies a precarious authorized place, particularly within the case of minors who’re incapable of knowledgeable consent.
Can a Youngster Select Dying?
The inclusion of a three-year-old little one within the mentioned follow, even when it was to be accepted as a reputable non secular act by consenting adults, presents a authorized, moral, and constitutional dilemma. A toddler lacks the cognitive and authorized capability to grasp the finality of dying or consent to it. Based on Indian legislation, minors can’t present consent for circumstances that contain critical bodily hurt or dying, as such consent is deemed legally void.
Moreover, the consent of the mother and father in life-and-death choices involving a toddler just isn’t absolute. Indian courts have intervened earlier than the place mother and father, basing on non secular causes, denied life-saving remedies to their youngsters. For instance, relating to issues of Jehovah’s Witnesses, courts have allowed blood transfusions in opposition to parental needs to avoid wasting the kid’s elementary proper to life beneath Article 21 of the Structure. This judicial strategy locations a higher weight on the curiosity of the kid, even the place non secular or parental claims come into play.
This stance is supported by a number of authorized frameworks. Underneath the Juvenile Justice (Care and Safety of Kids) Act, 2015, the State is obliged to guard youngsters from all types of hurt, equivalent to neglect and psychological or bodily abuse. Though the Safety of Kids from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 is worried with sexual offences, its underlying concept, i.e., minors are incapable of offering legitimate consent to high-risk bodily acts, may be utilized to deadly rituals equivalent to Santhara. Indian legislation and little one safety jurisprudence lay a particular emphasis on the “greatest curiosity of the kid“, one which stems from each home legislation in addition to India’s obligations beneath the United Nations Conference on the Rights of the Youngster. Exposing a minor to a non secular ceremony that results in dying, nonetheless draped in cultural or non secular justification, is opposite to this child-centric customary.
Crime or Customized? Felony Legislation Dimensions of a Youngster’s Ritual Dying
The authorized system should confront a vital query: Can any particular person be criminally liable for the dying of the kid on this case? Quite a lot of the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) may be utilized. Part 106 on inflicting dying by negligence could also be relevant whether it is proved that the mother and father or non secular mentors have been missing within the obligation of care to the kid. Part 108, which tackles abetment of suicide, can apply if the kid was in any method inspired or conditioned, within the subtlest of the way, to imagine that voluntary dying was a virtuous or essential act.
Part 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act criminalizes cruelty to youngsters, together with acts which might be more likely to trigger bodily or psychological hurt and even dying. Notably, the supply doesn’t require proof of a particular intent to hurt; the statute covers wilful assault, neglect, abandonment, or omission, and courts have interpreted that even negligent or reckless conduct that endangers a toddler’s life or well-being might entice legal responsibility beneath this part. Within the case that this ritual was carried out with out medical oversight, and significantly if the kid was sick or unable to withstand, this might be a culpable omission if not even reckless endangerment. The idea of constructive legal responsibility may additionally apply, beneath which the individuals who facilitated or silently inspired the act – be they non secular leaders, elders locally, or kin of the perpetrator – may be made collectively liable.
Proof supporting such legal responsibility might embrace witness testimonies that non secular or group figures endorsed or celebrated the kid’s quick; public sermons or discourses portraying voluntary dying as a virtuous act; and digital communications, equivalent to messages or social media posts, that glorify or plan such occasions. Even omissions to behave may be important, for instance, the place adults have been conscious of the kid’s deteriorating situation or bodily unfitness however did not intervene. Participation in rituals, logistical assist for the quick, or the usage of group premises may also point out facilitation. Furthermore, household or group stress that psychologically conditioned the kid to imagine the act was necessary or noble might present oblique coercion. Legally, such proof may also help set up widespread intention, abetment, and even culpable negligence.
There’s a particular concern for the general public glorification of the incident. The stories of together with the kid within the “Golden E book of Information” point out an energetic normalization and celebration of hurt to youngsters. That is potential complicity and an institutional failure to acknowledge and reply to against the law dedicated in opposition to a weak particular person. The legislation should look at if such glorification is an act of abetment, inducement, or neglect in relation to the prison and little one safety legal guidelines.
The place Have been the Guardians? Institutional Lapses and Youngster Rights Violations
As a response to the incident, the Madhya Pradesh Fee for Safety of Youngster Rights is alleged to have taken cognizance of the matter. Nevertheless, the Fee for Safety of Youngster Rights Act, 2005 gives the State and Nationwide Commissions with investigative and recommendatory powers however with out prosecutorial powers. This institutional barrier emphasizes the need of implementing an enhanced statutory and procedural mechanism to deal with such occurrences.
The incident requires the institution of necessary reporting procedures relating to non secular or cultural practices which will trigger bodily hurt to minors. It additional requires energetic surveillance by little one welfare authorities in communities the place such practices could be widespread. To keep away from future tragedies, the state might consider offering pointers that govern non secular rituals involving minors, significantly irreversible or life-threatening ones. These pointers would possibly require medical management or judicial evaluate earlier than any of those rituals are carried out on a toddler.
Additionally, the scenario is an effective instance of a case that requires judicial intervention. Public curiosity litigation (PIL) could possibly be employed to hunt court-supervised investigations and make authorities take measures according to little one safety legal guidelines. Courts may additionally be inspired to create jurisprudence in non secular practices that battle with the rights of the kid and consequently, set up preventive buildings in addition to accountability mechanisms.
Past Borders: How Different Democracies Reply to Hurt within the Identify of Religion
Comparative constitutional and human rights jurisprudence continues to affirm that non secular freedom can’t justify harming youngsters. In the USA, courts have repeatedly overruled parental non secular opposition to life-saving medical remedy for minors. A landmark case, Prince v. Massachusetts (1944), held that the State has extra powers to manage the actions of guardians and oldsters if the life or welfare of a kid is in peril, even with non secular claims.
In Europe, the European Court docket of Human Rights (ECHR) has additionally supported State intervention in circumstances the place non secular practices threaten the very best pursuits of a kid. Within the case of Jehovah’s Witnesses of Moscow v. Russia (2010), the ECHR confirmed {that a} State can restrict non secular freedom whether it is essential to make sure the well being and rights of others, and particularly minors. Such choices are part of a standard worldwide consensus: that the very best curiosity of the kid should be the paramount consideration, and that cultural relativism can’t be utilized in justification or excuse of practices that threaten life or growth.
India’s ratification of the UN Conference on the Rights of the Youngster, its creating jurisprudence on little one rights and bodily autonomy, has created a constitutional and ethical obligation to make sure that non secular freedom just isn’t abused to normalize little one hurt.Article 3 of the UNCRC particularly mandates that the very best pursuits of the kid shall be a main consideration in all actions regarding youngsters, whether or not undertaken by public or non-public establishments, together with non secular our bodies. This precept reinforces that neither parental consent nor non secular doctrines can override the kid’s elementary rights to life, well being, and dignity. Given this world jurisprudential pattern, the authorized lacuna at the moment in existence when coping with deadly rituals involving youngsters must be addressed.
Concluding Ideas: A Second of Reckoning
Viyana Jain’s dying isn’t just a private tragedy; it’s also a breakdown within the authorized, institutional, and ethical techniques that ought to shield defenseless lives. It reveals the shortage of regulatory controls that govern non secular practices with youngsters and the vagueness within the Indian legislation when such practices result in dying. This incident must be a second of reckoning.
It’s a matter of urgency that the authorized standing of Santhara must be clarified, particularly with the difficulty pending earlier than the Supreme Court docket. The legislation must develop to incorporate child-specific protections equivalent to minimal age limits, impartial medical evaluate, and judicial evaluate of any non secular ceremony that has the potential to trigger dying or everlasting incapacity. On the very minimal, such form of oversight needs to be made a requirement when minors are concerned.
As well as, there’s a want to coach and sensitize the legislation enforcement personnel, little one welfare authorities, and judiciary to make sure that acts of non secular exploitation in opposition to youngsters should not characterised as mere cultural or non secular expression. The dying of a three-year-old shouldn’t be considered as one thing which is carried out by custom – it needs to be thought to be a doable crime in opposition to a toddler. The balancing act between non secular freedom and the safety of life and childhood is colossal in a pluralistic democracy. Nevertheless, in that steadiness, the place the topic is a unvoiced little one, the legislation must be an energetic guardian and never a passive spectator. This may be operationalized by means of proactive pointers, necessary reporting mechanisms, and institutional accountability to intervene on the earliest indicators of ritualistic or non secular hurt to youngsters.
*Suhana Roy is a Third-year B.A.LL.B (Hons) Pupil at Hidayatullah Nationwide Legislation College, Raipur.
