Case Analysis: Nikhil Soni v. Union of India

In the Supreme Court of India
Name of the CaseNikhil Soni v. Union of India
CitationMANU/RH/1345/2015
Year of the Case2015
AppellantNikhil soni
RespondentUnion of India
Bench/JudgesSunil Ambwani, C.J. and Veerender Singh Siradhana, J.
Acts InvolvedConstitution of India, Indian penal code
Important SectionsArticle 21 of Indian constitution of India

Abstract

The Rajasthan Supreme Court publicly interest litigation (Nikhil Soni v. Union of India) criminalized the traditional religious practice of the Jain community called Santhara/Sallekhana, or fast-unto-death. The court equated Santhara to “suicide” under the Indian legal code. This judgment has received considerable flak from the Jain community over the past few months. A special leave petition (SLP) against the order was filed within the Supreme Court by Jain groups, and therefore the court granted an interim be the Rajasthan order while deciding to entertain the appeal. Following the stay, an 83-year-old woman from Madras was recently reported to possess completed the Santhara ritual and embraced death in an exceedingly peaceful manner.
While the aspect of the tribunal ruling regarding a person’s right to non secular freedom and conscience under Article 25 has been the topic of much debate and criticism, the judgment must even be critiqued within the context of the broader debate on the scope of Article 21 of the Constitution and also the right to die with human dignity.

Introduction

The Nikhil Soni judgment not only affects a nonsecular group’s freedoms guaranteed within the Constitution but also features a deep pertaining to the continued debate on the correct to die with dignity. While the Supreme Court is yet to choose on the matter, it’s important to analyse the infirmities within the court judgment, which misconstrues certain Supreme Court rulings and seems to possess taken the unsettled legal position on Article 21 at face value, without adequately analyzing precedent. Article 21 guarantees all citizens the inalienable and vital right to life. Admittedly, an alteration affecting human life, or placing this right in jeopardy must imply a radical and significant judicial scrutiny. The Supreme Court, within the case of Gian Kaur v. the State of Punjab, has held that the “right to life” doesn’t include the “right to die. The “right to die with dignity”, however, has been construed to fall within the ambit of Article 21.
The Rajasthan court has not taken sufficient note of the very fact that the Supreme Court, in Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011), states that if someone consciously and voluntarily refuses to require lifesaving medical treatment, it’s not a criminal offense. It permits passive euthanasia in certain rare situations. Within the absence of clear statutory guidelines, the court has laid down extensive guidelines and safeguards for a private who might want to discontinue/withdraw life support (involuntary passive euthanasia).

Background of the case

The Nikhil Soni judgment not only affects a non secular group’s freedoms guaranteed within the Constitution but also encompasses a deep concerning the continued debate on the proper to die with dignity. While the Supreme Court is yet to come to a decision on the matter, it’s important to research the infirmities within the judicature judgment, which misconstrues certain Supreme Court rulings and seems to own taken the unsettled legal position on Article 21 at face value, without adequately analyzing precedent. Article 21 guarantees all citizens the inalienable and vital right to life. Admittedly, an alteration affecting human life, or placing this right in jeopardy must require intensive and important judicial scrutiny. The Supreme Court, within the case of Gian Kaur v. the State of Punjab, has held that the “right to life” doesn’t include the “right to die. The “right to die with dignity”, however, has been construed to fall within the ambit of Article 21.
In the absence of clear statutory guidelines, the court has laid down extensive guidelines and safeguards for a person who might want to discontinue/withdraw life support (involuntary passive euthanasia).

Facts

  • India has been known to show its tolerance towards religions. Jainism has thrived for a long time in India and Jains are strict followers of their religion. Jains are known to practice a subtle form of passive euthanasia, commonly known as ‘Santhara’ or ‘Sallekhana’.  
  • Jain Shwetambar Sangha, Tonk Road, Jaipur has been in their support and has arranged for providing facilities to these Jains and have also organized a Mahotsav for the Jains and they have begun their fasts. Right Foundation, an NGO, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the public interest against the Sangha and the Union of India before the High Court of Rajasthan, claiming that Santhara is declared illegal as it was violative of several provisions of the Constitution and that the Court must investigate the practice and subject the same to suitable prosecution. Additionally, it was also claimed that the facilitation of the practice also is treated as a criminal act.

Issues

  • The special leave petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable before this Hon’ble Court;
  • The Tradition of Santhara is not valid against the touchstone of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution;
  • Santhara is not an essential religious practice and does not need any protection under article 25 of the Indian constitution;
  • Santhara is tantamount to suicide under section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and facilitation of its performance is the abetment of suicide under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860;

Relative provisions

Article 21 of the constitution of India- Constitution of India. Protection of life and private liberty. Not a soul shall be bereft of his life or personal liberty except in keeping with the procedure established by law.

Article 136 of Indian constitution- (1) The Supreme court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination sentence, or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal within the territory of India.


Related cases

Gian Kaur vs. union of India

The Supreme Court, within the case of Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, has held that the “right to life” doesn’t include the “right to die. The “right to die with dignity”, however, has been construed to fall within the ambit of Article 21.

The Rajasthan judicature has not taken sufficient note of the very fact that the Supreme Court, in Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011), states that if someone consciously and voluntarily refuses to require lifesaving medical treatment, it’s not a criminal offense. It permits passive euthanasia in certain rare situations. within the absence of clear statutory guidelines, the court has laid down extensive guidelines and safeguards for a private who might want to discontinue/withdraw life support (involuntary passive euthanasia).

On the opposite hand, the Supreme Court in Aruna Shanbaug has upheld the correct bodily autonomy of a private – a very important point of consideration when it involves the legality of a fast-unto-death.
The gaping hole within the Rajasthan high court’s reasoning on the protection granted by Article 21, therefore, lies in its misinterpretation of judicial precedent. The Gian Kaur verdict has held that the “right to measure with dignity” includes the “right to die with dignity”, where the method of natural death is just being accelerated to its conclusion. It must be added here that this matter, heavily relied on by both the parties, primarily prohibited the criminalization of suicide, i.e. unnaturally ending one’s life. The correct to die with dignity at the top of one’s life has been distinguished from suicide and may are taken note of by the judicature in Nikhil Soni.


Judgment

In Gian Kaur’s case (supra), the Supreme Court repelled the challenge supported Article 14 of the Constitution to the proper to live under Article 21 and reaffirmed retaining Section 309 within the Indian legal code. The Supreme Court held that the abetment of trying to kill is outside the purview of Section 306 and it’s punishable only under section 309 read with section 107 IPC. Suicide and assisted try to kill are made punishable for cogent reasons within the interest of society. Such a provision is taken into account desirable to also prevent the danger inherent within the absence of such a penal provision. The abettor is viewed differently, inasmuch as he abets the extinguishment of a lifetime of another person and punishment of abetment is taken into account necessary to forestall abuse of the absence of such a penal provision. It also held that suicides outside the category of physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia haven’t any rational basis to assert exclusion of the basic principles of the sanctity of life. The argument that the right to die is included in Article 21 of the Constitution and is protected as a nonsecular practice has no substance and isn’t acceptable.

References

https://thewire.in/law/feeding-life-into-the-santhara-debate

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/173301527/

SCC online

Gian Kaur vs. union of India 1996 SCC (2) 648

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *