INTRA UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 TEAM CODE- 18 R

INTRA UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

Before
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
AT INDIA

UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

CASE CONCERNING THE VALIDITY OF SANTHARA UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

CASE CONCERNING THE VALIDITY OF SANTHARA UNDER THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION.

S.L.P. NO. _____ OF 2020

JAIN SHWETAMBAR SANGHA…… .……PETITIONERS

v.

RIGHT FOUNDATION …… ……RESPONDENTS

-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT-

A
-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT-
 INTRA UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................................................... I

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................III

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION............................................................................................. IX

STATEMENT OF FACTS.......................................................................................................... X

ISSUES RAISED ..................................................................................................................... XI

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.................................................................................................XII

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ...................................................................................................... 1

[1.] THAT THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION BEFORE THIS HON’BLE COURT AGAINST THE

JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. ................................................. 1

[1.1.] THERE EXIST NO EXCEPTIONAL OR SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE, AND SUBSTANTIAL

JUSTICE WAS PRONOUNCED BY THE HIGH COURT............................................................. 1

[1.1.1.] This court may not entertain this petition through its powers vested in it by the
virtue of Article 136. ................................................................................................. 1

[1.1.1.1] The High Court delivered a verdict on the principles of substantial justice.
.............................................................................................................................. 2

[1.2.] THERE EXISTS NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW REVOLVING AROUND THE PRESENT
CASE WHICH WAS NOT ADDRESSED BY THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN. .......... 2

[1.2.1.] The absence of substantial questions of law shall make this petition non
maintainable. ............................................................................................................. 3

[1.2.1.1.] The Special Leave Petition involves no question of law ......................... 3

[1.2.1.2.] Even if the petitioners submit that there exists a question of law, the court
may interfere only in the cases of substantial question of law. ................................ 4

[1.2.1.3] The high court rendered its verdict based on the question of law involving
the constitutional provisions................................................................................... 5

[2.] THAT THE TRADITION OF SANTHARA IS INVALID AGAINST THE TOUCHSTONE OF

ARTICLE 21 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION. .................................................................... 5

A
-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT-
 INTRA UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

[2.1.] THE TRADITION OF SANTHARA FALLS OUTSIDE THE AMBIT OF LIFE UNDER ARTICLE
21. ................................................................................................................................. 5

[2.1.1.] Life under Article 21 only includes the requisite elements of survival, and its
enjoyment. ................................................................................................................. 6

[2.1.1.1.] The right to have a dignified life doesn’t imbibe the right to cede away the
right to life. ............................................................................................................ 6

[2.1.1.2.] Santhara is against the principles of constitutional morality. ................... 7

[2.1.1.3.] There exists no right to die under the Indian Constitution. ....................... 8

[2.2.] IN TOTO, SANTHARA FALLS OUTSIDE THE AMBIT OF DIGNIFIED RIGHT TO DEATH. ..... 9

[2.2.1.] There is only a right to have a dignified death under the provisions of Part III.
.................................................................................................................................. 9

[2.2.1.1.] The practice of Santhara falls outside the purview of ‘passive euthanasia’
which is intra vires the Constitution of India.......................................................... 9

[2.2.1.2.] The authorities cited are material to the case in the interpretation of law.
............................................................................................................................ 10

[3.] Santhara is not an essential religious practice and is not protected under Article
25. ................................................................................................................................... 10

[3.1.] The practice of Santhara is not an essential religious practice of the Jain faith. ... 11

[3.1.1.] Essential religious practice has been elucidated by this Hon’ble Court. ........ 11

[3.1.1.1.] The practice of Santhara passes the test of essential religious practice. .. 12

[3.1.1.2.] Superstitious practices of religions have been quashed in precedence.... 12

[3.1.2.] The practice of Santhara violates public order, morality or health. ............... 12

[3.2.] SANTHARA IS NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED.............................................. 13

[3.2.1.] Article 25 only protects essential religious activities. ................................... 14

[3.2.1.1.] The practice of Santhara is not protected under Article 25.................... 14

[3.2.1.2.] Impugned order propagates social reform. ............................................ 14

[3.2.2.] Santhara does not have protection under the freedom to manage religious affairs
guaranteed under Article 26. .................................................................................... 15

[3.2.2.1.] Petitioners constitute religious denomination. ....................................... 15

B
-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT-
 INTRA UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

[3.2.2.2.] Religious activities are subject to restrictions. ....................................... 15

[3.2.3.] Impugned order is intra vires of Article 29. ................................................. 16

[4.] THAT THE PERFORMANCE OF SANTHARA IS TANTAMOUNT TO SUICIDE,

SUBSEQUENTLY, FACILITATING THE SAME IS ABETMENT TO SUICIDE. ............................ 16

[4.1.] The performance of Santhara is tantamount to suicide under S. 309 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860......................................................................................................... 17

[4.1.1.] Essentials of S. 309 are fulfilled in the present case. .................................... 17

[4.1.1.1.] Santhara aims at an unnatural end. ........................................................ 17

[4.1.1.2.] Santhara involves conscious effort. ....................................................... 18

[4.1.2.] Subject must be deliberated in light of judicial reasoning. ............................ 18

[4.2.] Facilitating the performance of Santhara amounts to abetment of suicide under S.

306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. ............................................................................ 19

[4.2.1.] Involvement in Santhara is abetment. .......................................................... 19

[4.2.1.1.] Active instigation is involved. ............................................................... 19

[4.2.1.2.] Intentional aiding is abetment. .............................................................. 20

[4.2.2.] Facilitating of Santhara rituals is equivalent to abetment. ............................. 20

PRAYER ............................................................................................................................ XIII

C
-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT-
 [LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS]

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

¶ Paragraph
¶¶ Paragraphs
& And
§ Section
AIR All India Reporter
Art. Article
All Allahabad
ALJ Allahabad Law Journal
Anr. Another
Assn. Association
A.P Andhra Pradesh
Bom. Bombay
Cr. Criminal
Del. Delhi
Edn. Edition
Govt. Government
Id. Idem
In Re. In Regards to
IPC Indian Penal Code
JILI Journal of Indian Law Institute
J&K Jammu and Kashmir
LJ Law Journal
Ors. Others
S. Section
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCR Supreme Court Reporter
SLP Special Leave Petition
Supp. Supplement
QBD Queen’s Bench Division

i
-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT-
 [LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS]

UOI Union of India

U.P. Uttar Pradesh
USA United States of America
v. versus
WLR Weekly Law Reports

ii
-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT-
 [INDEX OF AUTHORITIES]

Index of Authorities

Cases

1 A NHS Trust v. Y, [2017] (QBD) 4 WLR 222. ......................................................... 6

2 A.S. Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 1765................................ 12
3 Abdul Gani Sofi v. Haj Committee, AIR 2009 J&K 40 ............................................ 14
4 Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam & Ors. V. Govt. of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2016 SC
209 .......................................................................................................................... 16
5 Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v UOI, (2011) 4 SCC 454 ¶124 ............................... 17
6 Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. UOI, AIR 2011 SC 1290..................................... 5, 7
7 Ashok Nagar Welfare Assn. v. R.K. Sharma, (2002) 1 SCC 749, 756 ¶ 12 ................. 1
8 Ashok Nagar Welfare Assn. v. RK Sharma, (2002) 1 SCC 749 .................................. 2
9 Bihar Legal Service Authority v. Chief Justice of India & Anr., (1984) 4 SCC 767 ¶ 2
.................................................................................................................................. 4
10 C.A. Thomas Master v UOI, 2000 Cr LJ 3729 (Ker) ................................................ 18
11 Chitresh Kumar Chopra v State (Govt of National Capital Territory of Delhi), AIR 2010
SC 1446................................................................................................................... 20
12 CIT v Maganlal Chaganlal (P) Ltd., (1997) 11 SCC 557 (SC). ................................... 4
13 Civil Service Union v. Minister of Civil Service, (1984) 3 ALL ER 935 .................... 2
14 Common Cause v. UOI (2014) 5 SCC 338......................................................... 3, 5, 6
15 Common Cause v. UOI, (2014) 5 SCC 338 ¶ 24 ........................................................ 8
16 Common Cause v. UOI, AIR 2018 SC 1665 ............................................................ 18
17 Commr. Hindu Religious Endowments v. Acharya Jagdishwarananda Avadhuta,
(2004) 12 SCC 770. ................................................................................................. 11
18 D.A.V. College, Jullundur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1971 SC 1737............................ 16
19 Delhi Development Authority and Anr. v. UEE Electricals Eng. Pvt. Ltd., (2004) 11
SCC 213 ¶ 11, 12....................................................................................................... 2
20 Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commsr. of I.T., (1955) 1 SCR 941 (949) ............... 1
21 Emperor v Dwarkapoonja, 13 Cr LJ 346 (Bom) ....................................................... 17
22 Emperor v M.T. Dhiraja, AIR 1940 All 486............................................................. 17
23 Eshan Meah, (1874) 12 WR 527 .............................................................................. 20
24 Ganga Debi v State (Delhi Administration), (1985) 28 DLT 35 ............................... 20
25 Ghulam Abbas v. State of UP, AIR 1983 SC 1268 ................................................... 18
26 Gian Kaur v State of Punjab, AIR 1996 SC 946 ....................................................... 17

iii
-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT-
 [INDEX OF AUTHORITIES]

27 Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1996 SC 946 ...................................................... 13

28 Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1996 SC 946 & 1257 ........................................... 7
29 Goura Venkata Reddy v State of Andhra Pradesh, (2003) 12 SCC 469 .................... 19
30 Gurbakhsh Singh v State of Punjab, (1955) AIR 320 (SC). ........................................ 4
31 Gurucharan Singh v State of Punjab, (2017) 1 SCC 433........................................... 19
32 H.H. Srimad Perarulala Ethiraja Ramanuja Jeeyar Swami v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR
1972 SC 1586 .......................................................................................................... 11
33 H.R.E. v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, AIR 1954 SC 282 .. 11
34 Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamla Devi, (2001) 6 SCC 496 ¶ 13 .......................................... 6
35 Inder Singh & ors. v. Kartar Singh, (1979) 4 SCC 192 ¶ 3 ......................................... 3
36 Indian Young Lawyers Assn. & ors. (Sabrimala Temple, In RE) v. State of Kerala &
ors., 2018 SCCOnLine SC 1690 ................................................................................ 8
37 Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, 2006 Writ Petition (Civil) No.
373 .......................................................................................................................... 15
38 Jagdev Singh v. Pratap Singh, AIR 1965 SC 183 ..................................................... 16
39 Jairamdas Guru Paltudas v. Swami Satyaramdasji Guru Sdhandasji, 1983 SCC OnLine
376 .......................................................................................................................... 11
40 Jamshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai, (2004) 3 SCC 214 ¶
33 .............................................................................................................................. 1
41 Jasobant Narayan Mohapatra v State of Orissa, (2009) Cr LJ 1043 (Ori) ................. 19
42 Javed v. State of Haryana, (2003) 8 SCC 369........................................................... 18
43 Justice K S Puttaswamy Retd And Another v. UOI And Others LNIND 2018 SC 5356
44 Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. UOI, LNIND 2017 SC 420 ¶ 166 .................................... 7
45 Kamlesh Vaswani v. UOI & ors. (2016) 7 SCC 592 ¶ 12 ........................................... 8
46 Kantaru Rajeevaru (Sabarimala Temple Review-5J.) v. Indian Young Lawyers Assn.,
2019 SCC OnLine SC 1461 ..................................................................................... 14
47 Kantaru Rajeevaru (Sabrimala Temple Review 5-J) v. Indian Young Lawyers Assn. &
ors., (2020) 2 SCC 1 ¶ 29........................................................................................... 8
48 Kavita v State of TN, AIR 1998 SC 2473 ................................................................ 18
49 Kesavananda Bharti v. UOI, AIR 1973 SC 225.......................................................... 6
50 Krishna Singh v. Mathura Ahir, AIR 1980 SC 707 .................................................. 14
51 Krushanahari Debnath v State, (1995) Cr LJ 3049 (Ori) ........................................... 19
52 Lakshmi Narain Mandal v. State of Bihar, (2003) 7 SCC 207, 212 ¶ 4 ....................... 2
53 Lily Thomas v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 1650 ................................................. 14
iv
-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT-
 [INDEX OF AUTHORITIES]

54 Maneka Gandhi v. UOI, AIR 1978 SC 597 ................................................................ 6

55 Maneka Gandhi v. UOI, AIR 1978 SC 597. ............................................................... 2
56 Maruti Sripati Dubal v State of Maharashtra, AIR 1997 SC 411 .............................. 18
57 N. Adithyan v. Travancore Devaswom Board, (2002) 8 SCC 106 ............................ 12
58 Nahas v. State of Kerala, Represented by Sub Inspector of Police Fort Kochi Police
Station, through the Public Prosecutor and Another, 2020 SCCOnLine Ker 3175 ...... 8
59 Nallor Marthandam Vellalar v. Commr., Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments,
AIR 2005 SC 4225 .................................................................................................. 15
60 Naresh Amritlal Shah and Ors. v. Kantilal Chunilal Shah and Ors., 2000 SCC OnLine
Bom 287 .................................................................................................................. 11
61 Naresh Marotrao v UOI, 1996 (1) Bom CR 92 ......................................................... 19
62 Nikhil Soni v. UOI (2016) 2 RLW 1629 ............................................................ 17, 18
63 Nikhil Soni v. UOI, (2016) 2 RLW 162 ..................................................................... 2
64 Nikhil Soni v. UOI, (2016) 2 RLW 1629 ¶ 43............................................................ 7
65 Om Prakash, 1982 Cr LJ 751 (Del) .......................................................................... 18
66 P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma, AIR 1995 SC 2001 ......................... 14
67 Pannalal Bansilal Patil v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 102 ..................... 15
68 People’s Union of Civil liberties v. UOI, AIR 2004 SC 1442 ..................................... 6
69 Praveen Pradhan v State of Uttarakhand, (2012) 9 SCC 734 .................................... 19
70 Queen Empress v. Ramakka, (1884) ILR 8 Mad. 5 .................................................. 18
71 Raghunath Das v Emperor, AIR 1920 Pat 502 ......................................................... 19
72 Rajib Neog v State of Assam, (2011) Cr LJ 399 (Gau) ............................................. 19
73 Ram Kumar v State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1995 SC 1965 : 1995 (Supp) 4 SCC 67
................................................................................................................................ 20
74 Ram Prasad Seth v. State of UP and Ors., 1960 SCC OnLine AII 128...................... 11
75 Ramakant Rai v. Madan Rai, (2003) 12 SCC 395 ¶ 12, & 14 ..................................... 3
76 Raruha Singh v. Anchal Singh, AIR 1961 SC 1907.................................................... 3
77 Ratilal v. State of Bombay, AIR 1954 SC 388 ......................................................... 12
78 S.P. Mital v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 1 ........................................................... 15
79 S.P. Mittal v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 1 .......................................................... 12
80 S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918 ................................................ 12
81 Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay, AIR 1962 SC 853 ......... 18
82 Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay, AIR 1962 SC 853 : 1962
Supp (2) SCR 496.................................................................................................... 11
v
-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT-
 [INDEX OF AUTHORITIES]

83 Shivanand Gaurishankar Baswanti v. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills, (2008) 13 SCC 323
.................................................................................................................................. 1
84 Shri Ram v State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1975 SC 175 .............................................. 20
85 Siddheswari Bora v State of Assam, 1981 Cr LJ 1005 (Gau).................................... 18
86 Sohan Lal v. Asha Ram, AIR 1981 SC 174 ................................................................ 3
87 Sri Adi Visheshwara of Kashi Vishwanath Temple v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1997) 4
SCC 606 .................................................................................................................. 15
88 Sri Lakshmana Yatendrulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 1414 ............. 14
89 Sri Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore, AIR 1958 SC 255 ..................... 14, 15
90 State (NCT of Delhi) v. UOI, (2018) 8 SCC 501 ¶ 284.3 ........................................... 7
91 State of A.P v. P. Anjaneyulu, (1981) 2 SCC 445 ...................................................... 4
92 State of Bombay v. Narasu, AIR 1952 Bom. 84 ....................................................... 14
93 State of Gujarat v Pradyuman Raman Lal Mehta, (1999) Cr LJ 736 (Guj) ................ 19
94 State of Punjab v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga (1998) 4 SCC 117 ........................................ 6
95 State of Rajasthan v. Sajjanlal, AIR 1975 SC 706 .................................................... 12
96 State of Uttranchal v. Ajit Singh Bhola, (2004) 6 SCC 800, 802-803 ¶ 9.................... 2
97 Stepahan Okoth Manyasa v. Republic, 2015 SCCOnLine Ken 1883. ......................... 6
98 Subhash Bhattacharjee v. State of Tripura, 2019 SCCOnLine Tri 441 ........................ 7
99 Suresh Chandra v. Union of India, AIR 1975 Del 168.............................................. 12
100 T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481 ............................. 16
101 T.S.C. Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerela and ors. 2013 SCCOnLine SC 915 ...................... 6
102 Taiyab Khan & Ors v. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) (2015) 13 SCC 455 ¶ 2 ......... 8
103 Tej Singh v State, AIR 1958 Raj 169 ....................................................................... 20
104 Thomas Mater v. UOI 2000 SCCOnLine Ker 430 ¶ 6.1 ............................................. 8
105 Valiamma Champaka Pillai v. Siuvathanu Pillai 1979 (8) TMI 210 ......................... 10

Statutes

1 Constitution of India, art. 142 .................................................................................... 5

2 Constitution of India, art. 19(1)................................................................................ 16
3 Constitution of India, art. 25(1 ................................................................................. 14
4 Constitution of India, art. 25(2)................................................................................ 14
5 Constitution of India, art. 25. ................................................................................... 11
6 Constitution of India, art. 26 .................................................................................... 13
7 Constitution of India, art. 29(1)................................................................................ 16

vi
-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT-
 [INDEX OF AUTHORITIES]

8 Constitution of India, art. 29. ................................................................................... 13

9 Indian penal Code, 1860, 107 ................................................................................. 20
10 IPC, § 309 ........................................................................................................2, 7, 17

Treasties, Books, and other authorities

1 A.K. PATTNAIK, DD BASU SHORTER CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (15th edition, LexisNexis

2019) ......................................................................................................................... 6
2 K.I. VIBHUTE, PSA PILLAI’S CRIMINAL LAW, (14th edn., Lexis Nexis) 2019 ............... 7
3 MARGARET PABST BATTIN, THE ETHICS OF SUICIDE: HISTORICAL SOURCES 47 (Oxford
University Press, USA 2015) ................................................................................... 17
4 MP JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, Lexis Nexis, (8th edition, 2018) ................ 14
5 RONOJOY SEN, LEGALIZING RELIGION: THE INDIAN SUPREME COURT AND SECULARISM,
(2007)...................................................................................................................... 13
6 T.K. TUKOL, SALLEKHANA IS NOT SUICIDE 4 (L.D. Institute of Indology, 1976)
................................................................................................................................ 12

Journals, Articles, literature, and other literary works

1 Aneeta A. Minocha, Arima Mishra, & Vivek R. Minocha, Euthanasia: A Social Science
Perspective, 46 ECONOMIC & POLITICAL WEEKLY 49 (2011). ..................................... 7
2 Arpan Banerjee, Reviving the Essential Practices Debate, (2016) 1 HNLU SBJ 55 . 13
3 B Parameswara Rao, Cases and Comments: Matters of Religion, 5 JILI (1963) 509 12,
17
4 Boparai, How Far Should Law and Morality be Differentiated, and the Question of
Abortion, 18 JILI 1976 85........................................................................................ 13
5 Chhatrapati Singh, Right to Life: Legal Activism or Legal Escapism?, (1986) 28 JILI
249 ............................................................................................................................ 6
6 Dennis J. Horan, Termination of Medical Treatment, 16 THE FORUM (SECTION OF

INSURANCE, NEGLIGENCE AND COMPENSATION LAW, AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION) 3

(1981)...................................................................................................................... 10
7 Indian Constitutional Law and Philosophy, "Essential Religious Practices" and the
Rajasthan High Court's Santhara Judgment: Tracking the History of a Phrase, August
19, 2015,.................................................................................................................... 8

vii
-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT-
 [INDEX OF AUTHORITIES]

8 Justice Aftab Alam, The Idea of Secularism and the Supreme Court of India, (October
14, 2009), available at https://gandhifoundation.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/justice-
aftab-alam-2009-gf-annual-lecture2.pdf (Last visited on September 27, 2018) ......... 15
9 Lewis Rice, Jain Inscriptions at Sravana Beloga, THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY: A
JOURNAL OF ORIENTAL RESEARCH 323-324 (1874) ...................................... 17
10 Md. Ashraf Al, Culpability Of Attempt To Commit Suicide – A Legal Labyrinth Amidst
Ethical Quandary.” 49 JILI 4. pp. 503–524 ............................................................. 11
11 Michael Lavin, Separating Death from Mind and Morals, 3 PUBLIC AFFAIRS

QUARTERLY 3 (1989). ............................................................................................... 10

12 Niharika Choudhary & Divyansh Singh, Practice and Belief of Santhara: Right to Die,
CHRIST LAW UNIVERSITY JOURNAL.5. 49-62. 10.12728/culj.8.4 ............................... 17
13 Rajeev Dhawan, Santhara: Did Supreme Court Just Allow Suicide?, DAILY OPINION,
7th September, 2015 ................................................................................................. 13
14 Richard K. Neumann, Sheila Simon, Suzianne D. Painter- Thorne, Legal Writing (4th
edition, Wolters Kluwer 2019). ................................................................................ 10
15 Ronojoy Sen, The Indian Supreme Court and the quest for a ‘rational’ Hinduism, 1
SOUTH ASIAN HISTORY AND CULTURE, 86-104 (2009) ............................................. 13
16 S.B. Deo, The history of Jaina Monachism From Inscriptions and Literature, 16
BULLETIN OF THE DECCAN COLLEGE POST-GRADUATE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE 1
(1954)........................................................................................................................ 7
17 Upendra Baxi, ‘On how not to judge the judges: Notes towards evaluation of the
judicial roles’ (1983) 25 JILI ................................................................................... 10
18 Upendra Baxi, “The Little Done, the Vast Undone”- Some Reflexions on reading
Granville Austin’s the Indian Constitution, 9 JILI (1967) 323 .................................. 15

viii
-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT-
 [STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION]

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE RESPONDENT SUBMITS BEFORE THIS HON’BLE COURT IN RESPONSE TO

THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONERS PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 136 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA TO GRANT SPECIAL LEAVE FROM THE JUDGMENT
RENDERED BY THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN.

ix
-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT-
 [STATEMENT OF FACTS]

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Background

❖ India is a secular country where Jainism is a religion which follows the tradition of Santhara
or Sallekhana which is culminated by starving to death.

❖ Ten elderly Jains invoked Santhara to attain salvation after fulfilling their worldly duties.
Jain Shwetambar Sangha, Tonk Road, Jaipur has arranged for providing facilities to them
and have also organized a Mahotsav for the Jains and they have begun their fasts.

The petitioners

❖ Right Foundation, an NGO filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court under
Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to declare that the tradition of Santhara is against the
constitutional provisions, and shall be treated as a criminal act

The verdict of the High Court

❖ Rajasthan High Court criminalized the act under S. 309 of IPC which constitutes the crime
of attempt to suicide, and its felicitation under S.306 of IPC which constitutes the crime of
abetment to suicide.
The Special Leave Petition

❖ Unhappy with the verdict, a group of Jains filed a special leave petition before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India against the order of the High Court. The Supreme Court put a stay
on the High Court’s order.

x
-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT-
 [ISSUES RAISED]

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether this Special Leave Petition filed before this court is maintainable?

2. Whether the tradition of Santhara is valid against the touchstone of Article 21 of the

Indian Constitution?

3. Whether Santhara is an essential religious practice and needs protection under Article 25
of the Indian Constitution?

4. Whether in fact the performance of Santhara is tantamount to suicide under Section 309 of
the Indian Penal Code, and facilitating its performance, abetment of suicide under Section 306
of the Indian Penal Code?

xi
-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT-
 [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. The SLP filed before this Honorable Court is not maintainable as the petition doesn’t involve
a substantial question of law as the same has been addressed by this court previously in its
judgments. Furthermore, no extraordinary event has taken place that involves gross
miscarriage of justice. This court is not a general court of appeal under Article 136 of the
constitution

II. The act of Santhara is not consistent with the provisions of law under Article 21 of the
constitution. The article only allows death with dignity in the cases of permanent vegetative
state, and terminall illness only by removing medical aid for such survival. Allowing Santhara
goes against the principles of constitutional morality, and is further a misinterpretation of right
to live with dignity or die with dignity imbibed by the constitutional provisions.

III. Freedom of religion is a fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26. However,
protection under article 25 is subject to the essentially religious practices doctrine and its effect
on public order, health and morality. Furthermore, religious denominations are subject to the
restrictions on their practices placed by Article 26. Additionally, Santhara does not come under
the protection of Article 29.

IV. The performance of Santhara is tantamount to suicide as defined under S. 309 of the IPC,
and its abetment under S. 306. The essentials laid down in S. 309 are fulfilled in the
performance of Santhara, i.e., conscious effort to an unnatural end. Similarly, its facilitation
amounts to its abetment, on the grounds of active instigation and aiding.

xii
-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT-
 [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

[1.] THAT THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION BEFORE THIS HON’BLE COURT AGAINST THE

JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT IS NOT MAINTAINABLE.

The special leave petition before this Hon’ble Court is not maintainable as the merits
of the petition have been addressed by the Hon’ble high Court of Rajasthan. There exists no
exceptional or special circumstance, and substantial justice was pronounced by the High Court
[1.1.]. Furthermore, there exists no substantial question of law revolving around the present
case which was not addressed by the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan [1.2].

[1.1.] THERE EXIST NO EXCEPTIONAL OR SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE, AND SUBSTANTIAL

JUSTICE WAS PRONOUNCED BY THE HIGH COURT.

The petitioners must prove that there exists a valid apprehension of substantial justice
which was rendered by the High Court. Furthermore, there exists an exceptional or special
circumstance without any existing remedy.

[1.1.1.] This court may not entertain this petition through its powers vested in it
by the virtue of Article 136.

There exists no right to appeal under Special Leave Petitions. 1 It is a sole discretion of
SC to interfere in suitable cases.2 The court may not act as a regular court of appeals which
settles disputes, and become court of errors.3 Henceforth, this court’s power may not be
confused with ordinary appellate powers which are exercised by appellate courts or tribunals.4

1
Ashok Nagar Welfare Assn. v. R.K. Sharma, (2002) 1 SCC 749, 756 ¶ 12.
2
Jamshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai, (2004) 3 SCC 214 ¶ 33.
3
Shivanand Gaurishankar Baswanti v. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills, (2008) 13 SCC 323.
4
Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commsr. of I.T., (1955) 1 SCR 941 (949).

1
-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT-
 [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

Furthermore, this court has restricted its powers of Judicial review to the cases of
irrationality,5 illegality,6 and procedural impropriety7 which are absent in the present case.8

[1.1.1.1] The High Court delivered a verdict on the principles of substantial

justice.

The constitutional safeguards are imbibed in Part III of the constitution, In the issues
involving the principles inculcated within Article 21, and Article 25, a court scrutinizes the
verdicts based on the principles of fair procedure established by law,9 and the constitutional
morality.10 Herein, HC has delivered the verdict within the ambit of substantial justice, and
within the ambit of law,11 and within its jurisdiction,12 and the SC may not interfere in such
cases. 13

Rajasthan HC held Santhara to be ultra vires the constitutional provisions under Article
21,14 and 2515 based on the provisions of IPC,16 and reasonable restrictions on the ground of
public morality, health, and order.17 Henceforth, the HC rendered its verdict based on the
constitutional provisions, and there lies no claim against the element of substantial justice or
any gross miscarriage of justice in this SLP before the court.

[1.2.] THERE EXISTS NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW REVOLVING AROUND THE PRESENT
CASE WHICH WAS NOT ADDRESSED BY THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN.

The Hon’ble SC has reserved its stands under SLPs only to the questions of law. The
Santhara issue involves the questions of law which have been already addressed by this court.

5
Delhi Development Authority and Anr. v. UEE Electricals Eng. Pvt. Ltd., (2004) 11 SCC 213 ¶ 11, 12.
6
Id.; Civil Service Union v. Minister of Civil Service, (1984) 3 ALL ER 935.
7
Id.
8
Compromis.; Nikhil Soni v. UOI, (2016) 2 RLW 1629
9
Maneka Gandhi v. UOI, AIR 1978 SC 597.
10
§ 2.1.1.2
11
State of Uttranchal v. Ajit Singh Bhola, (2004) 6 SCC 800, 802-803 ¶ 9.
12
Ashok Nagar Welfare Assn. v. RK Sharma, (2002) 1 SCC 749.
13
Lakshmi Narain Mandal v. State of Bihar, (2003) 7 SCC 207, 212 ¶ 4.
14
Compromis.; Nikhil Soni v. UOI, (2016) 2 RLW 1629
15
Id.
16
IPC, § 309.
17
Supra, note at 9.

2
-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT-
 [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

Furthermore, the petitioners are relying on the factual relevance of Santhara which doesn’t hold
a ground of interference under Article 136 of the Constitution.

[1.2.1.] The absence of substantial questions of law shall make this petition non
maintainable.

Special leave petition is only applicable before this court under ‘special’ or
‘extraordinary circumstances’ involving the ‘questions of law’.18 There lies no claim against
the valid judgment of the HC as it relied to the precedents set forward by the SC,19 and the
present SLP challenges the HC verdict on the factual circumstances revolving around the
beliefs in the Jain system.20 Henceforth, the SLP may not be entertained by this Hon’ble Court.

Furthermore, extraordinary circumstances mean the gross miscarriage of justice,21

which is not applicable in the present case as it the judgment rendered by the HC was within
the ambits of the procedure established by law.22 Due to the absence of substantial questions
of constitutional law, without an involvement of pressing demand for justice.23 This court may
deem it fit to dismiss the petition. The court shall not interfere in subject matters which have
already been addressed before.24

[1.2.1.1.] The Special Leave Petition involves no question of law

This Hon’ble Court has previously decided the questions involving ‘passive
euthanasia’,25 and a right to die with dignity.26 Since, the questions of law have revolving the
facts of the present case have already been addressed by this Hon’ble Court may not exercise
its powers under Article 136 in the said circumstances. Furthermore, this court has restricted

18
M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, (8th edition, LexisNexis 2019).
19
Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. UOI, AIR 2011 SC 1290.; Common Cause v. UOI, (2014) 5 SCC 338.
20
Compromis.
21
Inder Singh & ors. v. Kartar Singh, (1979) 4 SCC 192 ¶ 3.
22
§ 1.1.1.1.
23
Ramakant Rai v. Madan Rai, (2003) 12 SCC 395 ¶ 12, & 14.
24
Raruha Singh v. Anchal Singh, AIR 1961 SC 1907; Sohan Lal v. Asha Ram, AIR 1981 SC 174.
25
Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. UOI, AIR 2011 SC 1290.
26
Common Cause v. UOI, (2014) 5 SCC 338.

3
-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT-
 [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

the necessity of passive euthanasia only in cases of permanent vegetative state, 27 and by
withdrawal of medical treatment in such cases,28 which is not applicable in the present case.29

The SC cannot involve itself into the third court of facts by assessing the questions
involving the elements of facts rather than elements of law.30 The petitioners have submitted
the questions concerning the factual relevance of Santhara in Jainism,31 which doesn’t imbibe
any question of law.32 On the findings of facts, no interference shall made by the Hon’ble SC.33
Even if SC makes an involvement based on facts, it may not interfere in the questions which
may arise out of facts.34

[1.2.1.2.] Even if the petitioners submit that there exists a question of law,
the court may interfere only in the cases of substantial question of law.

The SC has reserved its stand in Special Leave Petitions only to cases which involve
substantial question of law.35 SLPs which do not involve the element of substantial question of
law are not entertained by the provisions enunciated under Article 136.36

Furthermore, since the SC hears the matter only based on the substantial questions of
constitutional or public law,37 or in the cases of gross miscarriage of justice,38 which is
substantially absent in the present case.39 This honorable court may deem it fit to not entertain
this SLP before it.

27
Supra, note at 25.
28
Id.
29
Compromis.
30
Gurbakhsh Singh v State of Punjab, (1955) AIR 320 (SC).
31
Compromis.
32
Compromis.
33
CIT v Maganlal Chaganlal (P) Ltd., (1997) 11 SCC 557 (SC).
34
Amarchand Sobhachand v CIT, (1971) AIR 720 (SC).
35
man
36
State of A.P v. P. Anjaneyulu, (1981) 2 SCC 445.
37
Bihar Legal Service Authority v. Chief Justice of India & Anr., (1984) 4 SCC 767 ¶ 2.
38
Id.
39
§ 1.1.1.1.

4
-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT-
 [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

[1.2.1.3] The high court rendered its verdict based on the question of law
involving the constitutional provisions.

Since, the question that had arisen before the HC involved the question of law
concerning the validity of Santhara against the constitutional provisions.40 Herein, the High
Court relied on the binding41 judgment of the Hon’ble SC which restricted the interpretation of
passive euthanasia only to the cases of vegetative state, and terminally ill medical condition.
42
Thus, restricting the interpretation of the right to a dignified death.43 Henceforth, it is
submitted that the HC rendered a valid judgement vis-à-vis constitutional provisions, and the
same shall not be challenged before this court under Article 136.

[2.] THAT THE TRADITION OF SANTHARA IS INVALID AGAINST THE TOUCHSTONE OF ARTICLE
21 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION.

Constitution of India recognizes the right to life only to the extent of elements necessary
for the enjoyment of life, and which make the life meaningful. The right to life does not include
a right to voluntarily extinguish your life. The tradition of Santhara falls outside the ambit of
Article 21 [2.1]. In furtherance, Article 21 recognized a right to die a dignified death only in
the cases of permanent vegetative state. In toto, Santhara falls outside the ambit of dignified
death [2.2.].

[2.1.] THE TRADITION OF SANTHARA FALLS OUTSIDE THE AMBIT OF LIFE UNDER ARTICLE 21.

Article 21 has been interpreted in the most liberal sense by the courts throughout the
country, and has included all the rights which are essential in the enjoyment of personal liberty,
and life. Be that as it may, the elements of enjoyment of life do not include a voluntary right to
die. Santhara falls outside the constitutional safeguard of ‘life’, and is thus ultra vires the
provisions enunciated in the Indian constitution.

40
Compromis.
41
Constitution of India, art. 142.
42
Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. UOI, AIR 2011 SC 1290.
43
Common Cause v. UOI, (2014) 5 SCC 338.

5
-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT-
 [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

[2.1.1.] Life under Article 21 only includes the requisite elements of survival, and
its enjoyment.

Fundamental rights in India are not absolute,44 and are subject to reasonable
restrictions.45 Though, the fundamental rights create a negative obligation on the state,46 they
never establish an absolute claim.47 However, every individual right has to give way to the
rights of public at large.48 Therefore, the practice of Santhara, prima facie, cannot be a claim
under the right to life if it goes against the public morality

The act of banning imposes reasonable restrictions, and thus are constitutionally valid.
Right to life is not absolute,49 and is subject to certain limitations.50 The acts meted while
banning the practice of Santhara were in consonance with such limitations and fall under the
protection of reasonable restrictions.

Right to life is an individual right.51 Hence, all individual rights must be equated with
a compelling state interest.52 An absolute, unrestricted individual right cannot exist in any
modern state.53 The consideration must be in light of the social, and constitutional perspective
so as to benefit the humanity as whole.54

[2.1.1.1.] The right to have a dignified life doesn’t imbibe the right to cede
away the right to life.

Article 21 only imbibes the principles of ‘enjoyment of life’.55 Thus, enjoyment of life
will include all the elements which make a person’s life meaningful, worthy, and complete.56

44
A.K. PATTNAIK, DD BASU SHORTER CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (15th edition, LexisNexis 2019).
45
People’s Union of Civil liberties v. UOI, AIR 2004 SC 1442.
46
M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (8th edition, LexisNexis 2019).
47
Kesavananda Bharti v. UOI, AIR 1973 SC 225.
48
State of Punjab v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga, (1998) 4 SCC 117.
49
A NHS Trust v. Y, [2017] (QBD) 4 WLR 222.
50
Stepahan Okoth Manyasa v. Republic, 2015 SCCOnLine Ken 1883.
51
Chhatrapati Singh, Right to Life: Legal Activism or Legal Escapism?, (1986) 28 JILI 249.
52
Justice K S Puttaswamy Retd And Another v. UOI & ors., LNIND 2018 SC 535 [380].
53
T.S.C. Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerela and ors., 2013 SCCOnLine SC 915.
54
Common Cause v. UOI, (2014) 5 SCC 338.
55
Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamla Devi, (2001) 6 SCC 496 ¶ 13.
56
Maneka Gandhi v. UOI, AIR 1978 SC 597.

6
-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT-
 [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

Ceding away the fundamental rights would undermine the value of the Part III of the
constitution which protects the right to life.57

A person could not cede away his existence while interpreting the meaning of ‘life’
under Article 21.58 This interpretation was also affirmed while determining the constitutionality
of suicide59 with respect to the right to life.60 The curtailment of natural span of life is ultra
vires the constitutional provisions of Article 21.61

Santhara is an act of voluntarily starving to death,62 which interferes with the process
of life, and consequentially leads to death.63 The process to shorten the life span falls within
the ambit of ‘unnatural death’64 which is barred by the provisions of Penal Code.65 The act of
accelerating the process of death by starvation is outside the purview of Right to life, and falls
within the ambit of S.309 of IPC.66

[2.1.1.2.] Santhara is against the principles of constitutional morality.

Even if the Jains claim that Santhara is an essential act for their religion, and religious
morality.67 Public morality can never supersede the constitutional morality.68 A court requires
to uphold the spirit of constitution69 in the strictest possible sense. 70 Courts must ensure in the
circumstances of social morality vis-à-vis constitutional morality in the cases of transgression
of fundamental rights71 that constitutional morality prevails of the erstwhile.72 Religious

57
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. UOI, LNIND 2017 SC 420 ¶ 166.
58
Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. UOI, AIR 2011 SC 1290.
59
IPC, § 309
60
Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1996 SC 946 & 1257.
61
Id. at ¶ 34.
62
S.B. Deo, The history of Jaina Monachism From Inscriptions and Literature, 16 BULLETIN OF THE DECCAN
COLLEGE POST-GRADUATE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE 1 (1954).
63
Compromis ¶ 2.; see also Aneeta A. Minocha, Arima Mishra, & Vivek R. Minocha, Euthanasia: A Social
Science Perspective, 46 ECONOMIC & POLITICAL WEEKLY 49 (2011).
64
K.I. VIBHUTE, PSA PILLAI’S CRIMINAL LAW, (14th edn., Lexis Nexis) 2019.
65
Supra, note at 16.
66
Nikhil Soni v. UOI, (2016) 2 RLW 1629 ¶ 43.
67
Compromis; Id.
68
State (NCT of Delhi) v. UOI, (2018) 8 SCC 501 ¶ 284.3.
69
Id.
70
Id.
71
§2.1.
72
Subhash Bhattacharjee v. State of Tripura, 2019 SCCOnLine Tri 441.

7
-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT-
 [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

practices which go against the principles of constitution or the constitutional morality are,
prima facie, ultra vires the constitutional provisions.73

Even in the cases of upholding religious values, courts must equate the balance between
faith, and freedom with the limitation of constitutional morality.74 Constitutional Morality has
now attained the threshold of stare decisis,75 and has upheld constitutional values in the highest
sense. 76 Religious freedoms under Article 25(1) is only valid to the extent that they do not
violate the other provisions of Part III of the constitution,77 which in the present case would be
the violation of the right to life as enunciated in the Article 21.78 The penal code provisions
against suicide,79 would make the act of Santhara against the constitutional morality.80

[2.1.1.3.] There exists no right to die under the Indian Constitution.

The right to life under Article 21 does not include a right to give away the right by
voluntary extinguishment of life.81 There is no such right to death, except death with dignity,82
recognized under the Indian Constitution. There is no intra vires right enunciated in any
provision of the constitution that allows a right to end life unnaturally.83

Santhara is a voluntarily process to end life.84 Any process that aims towards the process
of ending life falls within the ambit of ‘unnatural death’,85 which is constitutionally barred.86

73
Nahas v. State of Kerala, Represented by Sub Inspector of Police Fort Kochi Police Station, through the Public
Prosecutor and Another, 2020 SCCOnLine Ker 3175.
74
Indian Young Lawyers Assn. & ors. (Sabrimala Temple, In RE) v. State of Kerala & ors., 2018 SCCOnLine
SC 1690 [hereinafter, Sabrimala judgment].
75
Kantaru Rajeevaru (Sabrimala Temple Review 5-J) v. Indian Young Lawyers Assn. & ors., (2020) 2 SCC 1 ¶
29 [hereinafter, Sabrimala Review judgment].
76
Id.
77
Sabrimala judgment, supra, note at 74.
78
§ 2.1.
79
IPC, § 309.
80
Kamlesh Vaswani v. UOI & ors. (2016) 7 SCC 592 ¶ 12.
81
Thomas Mater v. UOI 2000 SCCOnLine Ker 430 ¶ 6.1.
82
Supra, note at 19.
83
Common Cause v. UOI, (2014) 5 SCC 338 ¶ 24.
84
Indian Constitutional Law and Philosophy, "Essential Religious Practices" and the Rajasthan High Court's
Santhara Judgment: Tracking the History of a Phrase, August 19, 2015, available at
https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2015/08/19/essential-religious-practices-andthe-rajasthan-high-courts-
santhara-judgment-tracking-the-history-of-a-phrase/ (Last visited on January 17, 2017).
85
KI VIBHUTE, supra, at note 64; see also Taiyab Khan & Ors v. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) (2015) 13 SCC
455 ¶ 2.
86
Supra, at note 79.

8
-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT-
 [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

Thus, it falls outside the protected ambit of right to life which is enunciated under the Part III
of the constitution.87

[2.2.] IN TOTO, SANTHARA FALLS OUTSIDE THE AMBIT OF DIGNIFIED RIGHT TO DEATH.

The constitution recognizes a right to have a dignified death only under permanent
vegetative state, where life becomes a source of suffering, and human dignity under right to
life is jeopardized. The constitutional line differentiates between death, and dignity, where the
latter is constitutionally recognized and safeguarded, and the erstwhile is barred by the
provisions of Part III.

[2.2.1.] There is only a right to have a dignified death under the provisions of Part
III.

There is a protection of dignified death within the provisions of Article 21.88 The
curtailment in the natural span of death is ulta vires the constitutional provisions of dignified
death.89

[2.2.1.1.] The practice of Santhara falls outside the purview of ‘passive

euthanasia’ which is intra vires the Constitution of India.

Passive euthanasia in India is limited to the withdrawal of life saving measures, 90 in a

permanent vegetative state,91 where there are no chances of recovery.92 In furtherance, Passive
euthanasia in India is limited to the medical cases.93

87
Supra, at note 60.
88
AK PATTNAIK, supra, note at 44.
89
Supra, note at 60.
90
Supra, note at 58.
91
Id.; Supra, note at 54.
92
Supra, note at 58 ¶¶ 85, & 124.
93
Id.

9
-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT-
 [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

The monks in the present case fall outside the purview of ‘patients’94 as they are not
under in a vegetative state95 which is a requisite to terminate life permitted by law.96 Be that as
it may, the monks in the present case were neither ill nor in a vegetative state.97 In addendum,
by the absence of the requisites for availing the right to die a dignified death vis-à-vis passive
euthanasia,98 the tradition of Santhara is constitutionally invalid.99 Furthermore, the
endorsement of Santhara by the Jain Shwetambar Sangha, 100 is constitutionally invalid as the
constitution bars assisted death in any form.101

[2.2.1.2.] The authorities cited are material to the case in the interpretation
of law.

All the previous judgments of the Honorable Supreme court have a persuasive value on
the SC of India,102 and the judgments of High courts have persuasive value, 103 The foreign
judgments have a persuasive value on the Indian courts,104 and the academic works have
persuasive value.105

[3.] Santhara is not an essential religious practice and is not protected under Article 25.

The practise of Santhara or Sallekhana is not an essential religious practice of the Jain
faith, [3.1] and the same is not Constitutionally protected. [3.2]

94
Michael Lavin, Separating Death from Mind and Morals, 3 PUBLIC AFFAIRS QUARTERLY 3 (1989).
95
Dennis J. Horan, Termination of Medical Treatment, 16 THE FORUM (SECTION OF INSURANCE, NEGLIGENCE
AND COMPENSATION LAW, AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION) 3 (1981).
96
Supra, note at 58.
97
Compromis.
98
Supra, note at 58.
99
Id.
100
Compromis.
101
Supra, note at 58.
102
Constitution of India, art. 142.
103
Valiamma Champaka Pillai v. Siuvathanu Pillai 1979 (8) TMI 210.
104
Upendra Baxi, ‘On how not to judge the judges: Notes towards evaluation of the judicial roles’ (1983) 25 JILI
2
105
RICHARD K. NEUMANN, SHEILA SIMON, SUZIANNE D. PAINTER- THORNE, LEGAL WRITING (4th edition, 2019).

10
-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT-
 [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

[3.1.] The practice of Santhara is not an essential religious practice of the Jain faith.

Courts in the past have time and again iterated the requirements of religious practices
which are protected106 under Article 25.107 The threshold of the same has often been demarcated
on the lines of whether the practice is essentially religious.108

The idea of non-violence forms an integral part of the basic tenets of Jainism.109
Subsequently, the practice of Santhara or Sallekhana is nothing but a systematic process of
suicide. Jainism, originating from Hinduism, upholds renunciation in life as its main
objectives.110 Furthermore, the tenets of Jainism actively prohibit suicide.111 The
aforementioned factors indicate that the practice of Santhara does not come under the preview
of essential religious practices.

[3.1.1.] Essential religious practice has been elucidated by this Hon’ble Court.

Essential part of a religion refers to the code of beliefs upon which a religion is
founded.112 These practices are fundamental to follow a religious belief.113 The test to
determine whether a practice is essentially religious or not is to find out whether the nature of
the religion will change without that practice.114 The practise must be pertinent to the
fundamental character of the religion.115 The practice of Santhara does not affect the nature of
the religion.

106
Constitution of India, art. 25.
107
Ram Prasad Seth v. State of UP and Ors., 1960 SCC OnLine AII 128.
108
Constituent Assembly Debates, December 2, 1948 speech by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar 65, available at
https://www.constitutionofindia.net/constitution_assembly_debates/volume/7/1948-12-02#7.65.177 (Last visited
on September 26, 2020).
109
Naresh Amritlal Shah and Ors. v. Kantilal Chunilal Shah and Ors., 2000 SCC OnLine Bom 287.
110
Jairamdas Guru Paltudas v. Swami Satyaramdasji Guru Sdhandasji, 1983 SCC OnLine 376.
111
Md. Ashraf Al, Culpability Of Attempt To Commit Suicide – A Legal Labyrinth Amidst Ethical Quandary.” 49
JILI 4. pp. 503–524.
112
Commr. Hindu Religious Endowments v. Acharya Jagdishwarananda Avadhuta, (2004) 12 SCC 770.
113
H.R.E. v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, AIR 1954 SC 282.
114
Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay, AIR 1962 SC 853 : 1962 Supp (2) SCR 496.
115
H.H. Srimad Perarulala Ethiraja Ramanuja Jeeyar Swami v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1972 SC 1586.

11
-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT-
 [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

[3.1.1.1.] The practice of Santhara passes the test of essential religious

practice.

The impugned order which equates Santhara to suicide, 116 is in consonance to the
principle tenets of Jainism. Religion is confined to the essential doctrine and necessary
ceremonies attached to it.117 Constitutional protection is only extended when a practice passes
the test of religious practice.118 It is submitted that the test is whether the nature of religion
would change without that practice.119 The Jains believe Moksha to be the ultimate goal of life,
which is not inherently dependent on the practice of Santhara.120 Therefore the practice is not
essentially religious.

[3.1.1.2.] Superstitious practices of religions have been quashed in

precedence.

Courts in the past have quashed religious practices of superstitious nature.121 In view
of the fact that renunciation forms part of the core Jain philosophy, and practicing Santhara is
not essential to achieve Moksha, it cannot be said to be an essential and integral part of the
religion, but merely ‘superstitious’ in nature.122 Tenets of the Jain faith must be relied upon123
when determining the legitimacy of the practice of Santhara.124

[3.1.2.] The practice of Santhara violates public order, morality or health.

The supreme object of ethical code of Jainism is to show the way for liberation of the
soul from the bondage of Karma by cultivating the three jewels (ratna-traya), namely Right
faith, Right knowledge and Right conduct, which constitute the path to it.125 It interferes with
secular activities of the State.126 In this instance, individual’s freedom of religion is only

116
Compromis.
117
Suresh Chandra v. Union of India, AIR 1975 Del 168.
118
N. Adithyan v. Travancore Devaswom Board, (2002) 8 SCC 106.
119
Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1963 SC 1638.
120
A.S. Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 1765.
121
S.P. Mittal v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 1.
122
Supra, note at 114.; B Parameswara Rao, Cases and Comments: Matters of Religion, 5 JILI (1963) 509.
123
Ratilal v. State of Bombay, AIR 1954 SC 388.
124
State of Rajasthan v. Sajjanlal, AIR 1975 SC 706.
125
T.K. TUKOL, SALLEKHANA IS NOT SUICIDE 4 (L.D. Institute of Indology, 1976).
126
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918.

12
-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT-
 [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

extended to activities done in pursuit of his essential religious practices and not to non-essential
practices.127

Law must complement morality.128 In the eyes of modernity, tradition has too many
peculiarities that restrain the nation's essential flight into progress. 129

In Jain texts and scriptures, people who commit suicide are defined as those who use
weapons, throw themselves into the fire and water and are liable to be caught in the wheel of
Samsara.130 Right to life does not include the right to die.131

Moreover, the Court, through its impugned order,132 made a necessary reform in the
community.133 It is pertinent to recall at this juncture, the stance of the Calcutta High Court in
1990 where it expressed its views on the need of modernisation of religion.134

[3.2.] SANTHARA IS NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED.

The practice of Santhara or Sallekhana is contrary to the provisions under Articles 25,135
26136 and 29.137 The protection under the same has been extended by this Hon’ble Court138 only
to include practices that are essential to the very character of the religion.139 All practices
prescribed in the tenets of a religion are not essential. 140 The present case involves the
substantial interpretation of the words “Liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and
worship” stated in the Preamble141 read with the aforementioned Articles.

127
Id.
128
Boparai, How Far Should Law and Morality be Differentiated, and the Question of Abortion, 18 JILI 1976 85.
129
Rajeev Dhawan, Santhara: Did Supreme Court Just Allow Suicide?, DAILY OPINION, 7th September, 2015.
130
Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1996 SC 946.
131
Ibid.
132
Compromis.
133
Arpan Banerjee, Reviving the Essential Practices Debate, (2016) 1 HNLU SBJ 55.
134
Supra, note at 113.
135
Supra, note at 106.
136
Constitution of India, art. 26.
137
Constitution of India, art. 29.
138
Supra, note at 114.
139
Ronojoy Sen, The Indian Supreme Court and the quest for a ‘rational’ Hinduism, 1 SOUTH ASIAN HISTORY
AND CULTURE, 86-104 (2009).
140
RONOJOY SEN, LEGALIZING RELIGION: THE INDIAN SUPREME COURT AND SECULARISM, (2007).
141
The Constitution of India, 1950, Preamble (Liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship).

13
-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT-
 [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

[3.2.1.] Article 25 only protects essential religious activities.

Religious right of person extends to practice, preach and profess a religion.142

Constitutional guarantee regarding freedom of religion extends to the practices of the same,
subject to essential practice doctrine.143

[3.2.1.1.] The practice of Santhara is not protected under Article 25.

Article 25(1)144 protects intra-group and inter group rights.145 It recognises rituals and
observances, ceremonies and modes of worship which are integral parts of the religion.146
Santhara is not an established customary right.147 Courts must delve into scriptures when
ascertaining the status of a practice.148 In present case, there exists instances of encroachment
upon public order, morality and health, which is valid restriction.149

[3.2.1.2.] Impugned order propagates social reform.

Religious freedom is subject to laws made for social welfare or reform.150 Measures of
social reform are permissible on the ground that it benefits the class of persons to whom the
Act applies.151 Impugned order is beneficial to the said class.152 Additionally, Art. 25 involves
separation between religious and superstitious activities, wherein the former is protected.153
Further, the said order did not affect an essentially religious activity, and material benefit
thereof, rose from it.154

142
P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma, AIR 1995 SC 2001.
143
MP JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, Lexis Nexis, (8th edition, 2018).
144
Constitution of India, art. 25(1)
145
Kantaru Rajeevaru (Sabarimala Temple Review-5J.) v. Indian Young Lawyers Assn., 2019 SCC OnLine SC
1461.
146
Sri Lakshmana Yatendrulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 1414.
147
Abdul Gani Sofi v. Haj Committee, AIR 2009 J&K 40.
148
Supra. note at 116.
149
Lily Thomas v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 1650.
150
Constitution of India, art. 25(2).
151
State of Bombay v. Narasu, AIR 1952 Bom. 84.
152
Compromis.
153
Krishna Singh v. Mathura Ahir, AIR 1980 SC 707.
154
Sri Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore, AIR 1958 SC 255.

14
-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT-
 [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

[3.2.2.] Santhara does not have protection under the freedom to manage religious
affairs guaranteed under Article 26.

Art. 26 is confined to religious denominations.155 Application of Art. 26 requires

community members to have common religious tenets peculiar to themselves.156 Art. 26 thus
guarantees collective freedom of religion.157 In the present case, the Jain community have a
distinct set of beliefs, common organisation and a distinct name,158 hence, falling under the
ambit of this provision.159 However, this is not an unlimited right.160

[3.2.2.1.] Petitioners constitute religious denomination.

It is pertinent to note that what does not constitute an essential or integral part of the
said denomination, cannot be protected under Articles 25 and 26. 161 The Svetambara sect of
Jains constitute a religious denomination,162 hence it is subject to the limitations of Art. 25.163
Subsequently, the impugned order does not encroach upon the rights of Jains conferred by the
said Article.164 The Jain community is a religious minority community and also it is a cultural
minority and therefore it is also subject to the restrictions upon this article in accordance with
the law,165 which may be local or otherwise.166

[3.2.2.2.] Religious activities are subject to restrictions.

Furthermore, Courts in the past have preferred the test of essentially religious practices
keeping in mind restrictions on grounds of public order, morality and health.167 It has also been

155
M.P. JAIN, Supra, note at 46.
156
Sri Adi Visheshwara of Kashi Vishwanath Temple v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1997) 4 SCC 606.
157
M.P. JAIN, Supra, note at 46..
158
Compromis.
159
Nallor Marthandam Vellalar v. Commr., Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, AIR 2005 SC 4225.
160
Sri Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore, AIR 1958 SC 255.
161
Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, 2006 Writ Petition (Civil) No. 373.
162
Supra, note at 125.
163
S.P. Mital v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 1.
164
Compromis.
165
Pannalal Bansilal Patil v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 1023
166
Upendra Baxi, “The Little Done, the Vast Undone”- Some Reflexions on reading Granville Austin’s the Indian
Constitution, 9 JILI (1967) 323.
167
Justice Aftab Alam, The Idea of Secularism and the Supreme Court of India, (October 14, 2009), available at
https://gandhifoundation.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/justice-aftab-alam-2009-gf-annual-lecture2.pdf (Last
visited on September 27, 2018).

15
-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT-
 [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

previously iterated that autonomy of religious practice is also subject to the deliberations of the
court.168

[3.2.3.] Impugned order is intra vires of Article 29.

Unlike Art. 19(1),169 29(1)170 is not subject to reasonable restrictions. The rights
conferred in this provision is made absolute by the Constitution of India.171 However, it is
restricted to cases of secular activities by religious institutions which do not encroach upon the
fundamental rights of others.172

Religious communities can practice rituals for the conservation of their culture.173 In
order to invoke Art. 29(1), it is essential for the impugned order to encroach upon their
conservation of culture,174 in which the present case fails.175

[4.] THAT THE PERFORMANCE OF SANTHARA IS TANTAMOUNT TO SUICIDE, SUBSEQUENTLY,

FACILITATING THE SAME IS ABETMENT TO SUICIDE .

The performance of Santhara is tantamount to suicide under S. 309 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860. [4.1] Subsequently, facilitating in performance of the same amounts to abetment
of suicide under S. 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. [4.2]

168
Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam & Ors. V. Govt. of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2016 SC 209.
169
Constitution of India, art. 19(1).
170
Constitution of India, art. 29(1).
171
M.P. JAIN, Supra, note at 46.
172
Jagdev Singh v. Pratap Singh, AIR 1965 SC 183.
173
D.A.V. College, Jullundur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1971 SC 1737.
174
T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481.
175
Compromis.

16
-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT-
 [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

[4.1.] The performance of Santhara is tantamount to suicide under S. 309 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860.

It is established that right to life does not extend to right to die.176 S. 309177 passes the
test of constitutionality.178 The essential elements of this provision are fulfilled in the practice
of Santhara. The end objective of Santhara is suicide. 179

[4.1.1.] Essentials of S. 309 are fulfilled in the present case.

The word attempt in S. 309 involves conscious effort.180 Act done must be in course
of the attempt.181 Hence, the practice of Santhara is a conscious effort in course of an objective
to take one’s own’s life.182 The vow is intended to purify the soul from the karmas and achieve
Moksha by undertaking the ordeal of Santhara.183

[4.1.1.1.] Santhara aims at an unnatural end.

The highest importance in Jainism is attached to passionlessness. It teaches not only the
art of a beautiful living but also the art of dying a dignified death.184 Santhara is a practice to
achieve unnatural death, which was rightly considered in the impugned order.185 In Jainism, a
passionless state of mind leads to both the cessation of the accumulation of Karma and the
destruction of existing karma that is already attached to one’s soul,186 Santhara is means to an
unnatural end. Additionally, element of mens rea cannot be ruled out.187

176
K.I. VIBHUTE, P.S.A. PILLAI: CRIMINAL LAW, Lexis Nexis (14th edition, 2019).
177
IPC, § 309.
178
Gian Kaur v State of Punjab, AIR 1996 SC 946.
179
Nikhil Soni v. UOI (2016) 2 RLW 1629.
180
Emperor v M.T. Dhiraja, AIR 1940 All 486.
181
Emperor v Dwarkapoonja, 13 Cr LJ 346 (Bom).
182
Id.
183
B Parameswara Rao, Cases and Comments: Matters of Religion, 5 JILI (1963) 509.
184
Lewis Rice, Jain Inscriptions at Sravana Beloga, THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY: A JOURNAL OF ORIENTAL
RESEARCH 323-324 (1874).
185
Niharika Choudhary & Divyansh Singh, Practice and Belief of Santhara: Right to Die, CHRIST LAW
UNIVERSITY JOURNAL.5. 49-62. 10.12728/culj.8.4.
186
MARGARET PABST BATTIN, THE ETHICS OF SUICIDE: HISTORICAL SOURCES 47 (Oxford University Press, USA
2015).
187
Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v UOI, (2011) 4 SCC 454 ¶124.

17
-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT-
 [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

[4.1.1.2.] Santhara involves conscious effort.

In order for an act to come under the preview of this provision, there must be positive
action on the part of the accused to efface his life.188 The act done must be in the course of the
attempt.189 The word “attempt” implies some mindful endeavour to realize the act.190
Moreover, no distinction can be made between suicide as ordinarily understood, and the right
to voluntarily put an end to one’s life.191 Furthermore, suffering due to old age is no exception
under Indian law.192

[4.1.2.] Subject must be deliberated in light of judicial reasoning.

There is a blanket prohibition on the right to die.193 Courts in the past have viewed this
matter considerately.194 No distinction can be made between suicide as ordinarily understood
and the right to voluntarily put an end to one’s life.195

A person, after taking vow of Santhara stops eating and even drinking water and waits
for death to arrive.196 It is submitted that the Santhara is a religious thought, which has no place
under the law of the land. This Hon’ble Court upheld the power of the police to prohibit harmful
practices, such as the sacrifice of human beings in the name of religion.197 Impugned order is
necessary in grounds of public order, morality and health. 198

Secular nature of Indian democracy should be the very basis of the Indian Constitution,
hence such practices cannot be allowed under the garb of article 25 and 26, and rightly be
penalised under S. 309.199

188
Common Cause v. UOI, AIR 2018 SC 1665.
189
Om Prakash, 1982 Cr LJ 751 (Del).
190
Queen Empress v. Ramakka, (1884) ILR 8 Mad. 5.
191
C.A. Thomas Master v UOI, 2000 Cr LJ 3729 (Ker).
192
Siddheswari Bora v State of Assam, 1981 Cr LJ 1005 (Gau).
193
Maruti Sripati Dubal v State of Maharashtra, AIR 1997 SC 411.
194
Kavita v State of TN, AIR 1998 SC 2473.
195
C.A. Thomas Master v UOI, 2000 Cr LJ 3729 (Ker).
196
Nikhil Soni v. UOI (2016) 2 RLW 1629.
197
Ghulam Abbas v. State of UP, AIR 1983 SC 1268.
198
Javed v. State of Haryana, (2003) 8 SCC 369.
199
Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay, AIR 1962 SC 853.

18
-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT-
 [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

[4.2.] Facilitating the performance of Santhara amounts to abetment of suicide under S.

306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

S. 306 lays down reasonable public policy to prevent other persons’ involvement,
instigation and aiding in terminating one’s life.200 Its objective is to prevent death baiters.201
The offence under this provision, must concur with the definition of “abetment” as given in S.
107.202

[4.2.1.] Involvement in Santhara is abetment.

To fulfil the requisites of the provision, there must be active instigation, cooperation or
intentional assistance.203 Encouragement to do the deed would be abetment. 204 There must be
an element of sustained incitement for suicide.205 Practice of Santhara involves abetment form
the community and the religious parties.

[4.2.1.1.] Active instigation is involved.

A person is said to instigate another when he urges forward or provokes, incites, urges
or encourages such person to do an act prohibited by law.206 There must be close casual
connection between the instigation and the act committed.207 It consistent with the practice of
Santhara.208

Circumstantial evidence is paramount.209 Active complicity is essential.210 Continued

intentional course of conduct,211 creates such circumstances that the deceased was left with no

200
Naresh Marotrao v UOI, 1996 (1) Bom CR 92.
201
Raghunath Das v Emperor, AIR 1920 Pat 502.
202
Indian Penal Code, 1860, s. 107.
203
K.I. VIBHUTE, Supra, note at 64.
204
Krushanahari Debnath v State, (1995) Cr LJ 3049 (Ori).
205
Gurucharan Singh v State of Punjab, (2017) 1 SCC 433.
206
Goura Venkata Reddy v State of Andhra Pradesh, (2003) 12 SCC 469.
207
State of Gujarat v Pradyuman Raman Lal Mehta, (1999) Cr LJ 736 (Guj).
208
Lewis Rice, Supra, note at 184.
209
Praveen Pradhan v State of Uttarakhand, (2012) 9 SCC 734.
210
Jasobant Narayan Mohapatra v State of Orissa, (2009) Cr LJ 1043 (Ori).
211
Rajib Neog v State of Assam, (2011) Cr LJ 399 (Gau).

19
-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT-
 [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

other option except to commit suicide, then abetment by instigation is said to be occurred.212
Presence of an individual with the objective of intentional aiding is abetment.213

[4.2.1.2.] Intentional aiding is abetment.

Encouraging a person to undertake Santhara amounts to intentional aiding.214

Intentional aid is gist of abetment.215 It is to be noted that the act of facilitating the practice of
Santhara fulfils all the requisites of abetment to suicide.

Explanation 2 of S. 107216 extends said liability to those individuals who encourage by

conduct, the practice of Santhara.

[4.2.2.] Facilitating of Santhara rituals is equivalent to abetment.

Said practice has been established as an offence under S. 309.217 Intentionally aiding
the commission of an offence by non-interference is also a breach of legal obligation.218
Abetment can also be established in instances of active facilitation of a crime.219 It is pertinent
to note that members of a community who facilitate the practice of Santhara, by assisting in
necessary preparations, are legally complicit for abetment to suicide.220

***

212
Chitresh Kumar Chopra v State (Govt of National Capital Territory of Delhi), AIR 2010 SC 1446.
213
Ganga Debi v State (Delhi Administration), (1985) 28 DLT 35.
214
Tej Singh v State, AIR 1958 Raj 169.
215
Shri Ram v State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1975 SC 175.
216
Indian penal Code, 1860, S. 107.
217
§ 4.1.
218
Shri Ram v State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1975 SC 175.
219
Eshan Meah, (1874) 12 WR 527.
220
Ram Kumar v State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1995 SC 1965 : 1995 (Supp) 4 SCC 67.

20
-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT-
 [PRAYER]

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of issues raised, arguments advanced, the respondent humbly prays
before the Honorable Supreme Court to adjudge and declare that:

1. That the Special Leave Petition before this court is not maintainable.

2. That the tradition of Santhara is invalid against the touchstone of Article 21 of the
Indian Constitution.

3. That Santhara is not an essential religious practice and needs protection under Article

25 of the Indian Constitution.

4. That of Santhara is tantamount to suicide under Section 309 of the Indian Penal
Code, and facilitating its performance falls within the ambit of abetment to suicide
under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

OR/AND

Pass any order that it deems feet for the interest of Justice, Equity, and Good Conscience.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

----------------------------------------

COUNSEL(S) FOR THE PETITIONERS

xiii
-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT-