moot problem and moot memorial, Lecture notes of Contract Law

Download moot problem and moot memorial and more Lecture notes Contract Law in PDF only on Docsity!

TEAM CODE _____

T HE 5 TH^ A MITY L AW S CHOOL I NTRA C OLLEGE M OOT C OURT C OMPETITION- 2011

I N IN T HTH EE H OHO NN '' BB LL EE HH II GG HH C OCO UU RR TT O FOF JJ UU DD II CC AA TT UU RR EE A TAT A LAL LL AA HH AA BB AA DD

LL UU CC KK NN OO WW BB EE NN CC HH ,, L ULU CC KK NN OO WW

(CASE NO.________ OF 2011)

IN THE MATTER OF:

MS. PRABHA DEVI,

--- PETITIONER

Versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, --- RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT

TEAM CODE _____

T HE 5 TH^ A MITY L AW S CHOOL I NTRA C OLLEGE M OOT C OURT C OMPETITION- 2011

I N IN T HTH EE H OHO NN '' BB LL EE HH II GG HH C OCO UU RR TT O FOF J UJU DD II CC AA TT UU RR EE A TAT A LAL LL AA HH AA BB AA DD

LL UU CC KK NN OO WW BB EE NN CC HH ,, L ULU CC KK NN OO WW

(CASE NO.________ OF 2011)

IN THE MATTER OF:

MS. PRABHA DEVI,

--- PETITIONER

Versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, --- RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT

TaTabbllee ooff CCoonntteennttss II

T T A BAB LL EE OO FF (^) CC (^) OO NN TT EE NN TT SS

TAB L E O F AB B RE V I A T I O N ................................................................................................IV

INDE X O F AUT H ORI T I E S ................................................................................................. VII

Cases .................................................................................................................................. VII Statutes .................................................................................................................................. X Books Referred ..................................................................................................................... X Articles .................................................................................................................................. X Other Authorities .................................................................................................................XI

ST AT E M E NT OF JU RI SDI C T I ON ..................................................................................... XII

ST AT E M E NT OF FAC T S ................................................................................................... XIII

ST AT E M E NT OF IS SU E S ................................................................................................... VIII

SUM M A RY O F AR GU M E NT S ..............................................................................................IX

AR GU M E NT S ADV AN CE D ..................................................................................................... 1

I. I. WWHHEETT HHEERR T HTHEE PRPRAACCTTIICCEE OFOF (^) SSANANTT HHAARRAA (^) EENNJJOOYYSS (^) PPRROOTTEE CTCTII OONN UNUNDDEERR CCOONNSSTTIITTUUTTII OONNAALL PPRROOVVIISISIOONNSS. ......................................................................................... 1 A. That practice of Santhara contradicts the fundamental spirit of Art. 21. ........ 2 B. That protection under Art. 25 is ensured when a religious belief or practice fulfils certain prerequisite. .............................................................................................. 9

B.1 Freedom to Practice a religion of his choice. ............................................... 9

B.2 Freedom of Conscience. ................................................................................ 10

TaTabbllee ooff CCoonntteennttss III

II II.. (^) WWHEHETT HHEERR TT HHEE AADDMMII NNIISSTTRRATATIIVVEE IINNTTEERRVVEE NNTTIIOONN WWASAS IINN BRBREEAACCHH OOFF TT HHEE PPEETTIITTIIONONEE RRSS^ FFUNUNDDAAMMEENNTTAALL^ RRI GIGHHTT TT OO OOBBSSEE RRVVEE HHEERR^ RERELLII GGIIOOUUSS PPRRAACCTTIICCEE^ ..^ .....^14 A. That the administrative action was justified. .................................................... 14 B. That the petitioner intends to unlawfully end her life. ..................................... 15 C. That the petitioner had no spiritual motive but to end her miseries by ending her life. ............................................................................................................................ 17 C.1 That the attempt to commit suicide was intentional by the petitioner. ........... 19 D. That the state has to safeguard the larger interests of the society. ................. 20

PRA YE R .................................................................................................................................. 21

TaTabbllee ooff AAbbbbrreevviiaattiioonn IV

T T (^) AA BB LL EE OO FF (^) AA (^) BB BB RR EE VV II AA TT II OO NN § …. Section

¶/¶¶ …. Paragraph(s)

A.I.R …. All India Reporter

A.L.J …. Allahabad Law Journal

A.P. …. Andhra Pradesh

ACR …. Allahabad Criminal Rulings

AIHC …. All India High Court Cases

AIR …. All India Reporter

ALD(Cri) …. Andhra Legal Decision (Criminal)

All ER …. All England Law Reports

All. …. Allahabad

ALT …. Andhra Law Times

AWC …. Allahabad Weekly Cases

BLJR …. Bihar Law Journal Reports

Bom. L.R. …. Bombay Law Reporter

Bom. …. Bombay

C.L.J …. Calcutta Law Journal

Cal. …. Calcutta

CCR …. Current Criminal Reports

CriLJ …. Criminal Law Journal

DLT …. Delhi Law Times

ed./eds. …. Editor(s)

TaTabbllee ooff AAbbbbrreevviiaattiioonn V

edn. …. Edition

Guj. …. Gujarat

H.P. …. Himachal Pradesh

HL …. House of Lords

Hyder. …. Hyderabad

I.C. …. Indian Cases

I.L.R …. Indian Law Reports (Gov. of India Publications)

Ibid. …. Ibidem

JLJ …. Jabalpur L aw Journal

JT …. Judgment Today

KCCR …. Karnataka Civil and Criminal Reporter

Ker. …. Kerala

KLT …. Kerala Law Times

Ltd. …. Limited

M.B. …. Madhya Bharat

M.L.J …. Madras Law Journal

M.P. …. Madhya Pradesh

Mad …. Madaras

MPHT …. MP High Court Today

Mys. …. Mysore

Nag. …. Nagpur

No. …. Number

Ori. …. Orissa

TaTabbllee ooff AAbbbbrreevviiaattiioonn VI

Ors. …. Others

Pat. …. Patna

p./ pp. …. Page/ Pages

Punj. …. Punjab

Pvt. …. Private

QB …. Queen‟s Bench

Rang. …. Rangoon

Rep. …. Reprint

S.C.A. …. Supreme Court Appeals

S.C.J …. Supreme Court Journal

S.C.R. …. Supreme Court Reports

Sau. …. Saurashtra

SCALE …. Supreme Court Almanac

Supp. …. Supplement

T.C. …. Travancore and Cochin

U.S. …. U.S. Supreme Court

UJ …. Unreported Judgment v. …. Versus

Vol. …. Volume

WritLR …. Writ Law Reporter

InInddeexx ooff AAuutthhoorriittiieess VII

I I NN DD EE XX OO FF AA UU TT HH OO RR II TT II EE SS

InInddeexx ooff AAuutthhoorriittiieess VIII Dr. Banwarilal Sharma v. State of U.P. and Ors., JT 1998 (4) SC 466, (1998) 3 SCC 604.

• ‘X’ v Hospital ‘Z’ , (1998) 8 SCC Cases
• A.S. Narayana v. State of A.P., AIR 1996 SC 1765.
  • AIR 1984 SC Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta v Commissioner of Police, (1983) 4 SCC 522:
• Adelaide Company of Jehovah's Witnesses v. The Commonwealth, 67 CLR
• Arunish Singh v. State of M.P., 1984 CrLJ 1616(MP).
• Arver v. US, (1918) 245 US
• Bijaylakshmi Tripathy v. Managing Committee of Working Women Hostel, AIR
  • Ori
• Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala , AIR 1987 SC
• Board of Education v. Barnette, (1943) 319 US 624.
  • Kerala 368. C. A. Thomas Master and etc. v. Union of India and Ors., 2000 CriLJ 3729, ILR 2000 (3)
• Cantwell v. State of Connecticut, (1939) 310 US 296 (303)
• Chenna Jagadeeswar v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1988) Cri 357 : 1988 Cri LJ
• Clift v. Schwabe , (1846) 3 CB 437.
• Commissioner of Police v. Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta, AIR 2004 SC
  • (2004) 12 SCC 770. Commissioner of Police v. Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta, AIR 2004 SC 2984:
• Commr., H.R.E. v. Lakshmindra, AIR 1954 SC
• Davis v. Beason, (1890) 133 US
• District Registrar and Collector v. Canara Bank, (2005)1 SCC
• Durgah Committee v. Hussain, AIR 1965 SC
• E.R.J. Swami v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1972 SC
• Emperor v. R. Vinayak Dhulekar, 1925 All 165.
• Employment Division Department of Human Resources v. Smith ., (1990) 494 US 879.
• Fowler v. Rhode Island, (1953) 345 US
• Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1981 SC
• Govindlalji v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1963 SC
• Harrison Malayalam Ltd. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2007 (4) K.L.T. 540.
• Inderpuri General Store v. Union of India, AIR 1992 J&K 11.
• Jagdish Chander Bhatia v. State, 1983 CrLJ NOC 235 (Del)
• Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461.............................................
• Krishnan v. State of Madras, AIR 1951 SC
• Malak Singh v. State of Punjab & Haryana, MANU/SC/0157/1980 : 1981CriLJ
• Mohd. Hanif Qureshi & Ors v. State of Bihar, AIR 1958 SC 731: [1959] 1 SCR
• Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1992 SC
• Moti Das v. Sahi, AIR 1969 SC 942.......................................................................................
• Munn v. Illinois, (1877) 94 U.S................................................................................................
• N. Adithayan v. Travancore Dewaswon Board, AIR 2002 SC
• Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municial Corporation , AIR 1986 SC
• P. Rathinam v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC
• P. Rathinam v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC
• Raghunath v. State, 1963 CriLj
• Ram Singh v. State of Delhi, AIR 1951 SC

InInddeexx ooff AAuutthhoorriittiieess IX

Ramamoorthy alias Vannia Adikalar v. State of Madras, 1992 CriLJ 2074: MANU/TN/0140/1990 ......................................................................................................... 19 Ramanuja v. State of T.N., AIR 1972 SC 1586 .................................................................... 12 Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. State of Bombay and Ors. (1954) SCR 1055........................ 9 Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. State of Bombay and Ors., (1954) SCR 1055..................... 10 Reliance Telecommunications Ltd. v. S. I. of Police, W.P. (Cri) No. 6433 of 2010: MANU/KE/2352/2010 ......................................................................................................... 14 Reynolds v. U.S ., (1879) 98 US 145. ........................................................................................ 2 Reynolds v. US ., (1978) 98 US 145 .......................................................................................... 9 Saifuddin v. State of Bombay, AIR 1962 SC 853 ................................................................... 9 Shaibya Shukla v. State of U.P., AIR 1993 All 171 ............................................................... 5 Smt. Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1996 SC 946: 1996 (1) ALD (Cri) 102: 1996 (1) ALT (Cri) 535: 1996 (2) BLJR 809: 1996 CriLJ 1660: 1996 (1) CTC 454: (1996) 2 GLR 563: JT 1996 (3) SC 339: 1996 (2) SCALE 881: (1996) 2 SCC 648: [1996] 3 SCR 697 .... 7, 15 Smt. Selvi and Ors. v. State of Karnataka, 2010 (2) Crimes 241 (SC) ................................. 8 Sri Jagannath Temple Puri Management Committee v. Chintamani Khuntia, (1997) 8 SCC 422 ............................................................................................................................... 12 State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kurshi Kassab Jamat, AIR 2006 SC 212 .................. 12 State of U.P. v. Shah Mohd. , AIR 1969 SC 1234 ................................................................... 5 State of West Bengal v. Ashutosh Lahiri, AIR 1995 SC 464 .............................................. 12 Swarup v. State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 809......................................................................... 12 T.V. Narayana v. Venkata Subbamma, AIR 1996 SC 1807 ............................................... 11 The Commissioner Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Shri Lakshimindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, (1954) 1 SCR 1005 ................................................ 9

InInddeexx ooff AAuutthhoorriittiieess X

Torcaso v. Watkins, (1961) 367 US 488.................................................................................. 2

Statutes

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. ......................................................................................... 14 The Constitution of India. .......................................................................................................... 6 The Indian Penal Code, 1860. .................................................................................................. 18 The Police Act, 1861................................................................................................................ 14

Books Referred

A. Ashworth, Principles of Criminal Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991).......................... 17 Durga Das Basu, Commentary on The Constitution of India ( vol 3, LexisNexis: 2008) ......... 2 G. William, Salmond on Jurisprudence (LexisNexis: 2007) ................................................... 17 W. O. Russell, Russell on Crime (J.W.C. Turner Ed., Universal Law Publishing Pvt., New Delhi: 2001) ......................................................................................................................... 17 Articles

A.S. Jain, “ Santhara - A Religious Fast To Death” (available http://www.jainworld.com/jainbooks/images/29/ SANTHARA _- A_RELIGIOUS_FAST.htm) [accessed August 20, 2011] ................................................ 13 Prakash Bhandari, “Another Jain Woman on fast unto Death” (available http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2006-09-30/india/27821360_1 Santhara -jain- festival-age-old-jain-ritual [accessed August 16,2011]) ........................................................ 4 Wikipedia, “Santhara” (available http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Santhara [accessed August 18, 2011]) ..................................................................................................................................... 4

InInddeexx ooff AAuutthhoorriittiieess XI

Other Authorities

Draft Penal Code, Appendix Note B.,...................................................................................... 18 Sayre, Mens Rea (Harvard Law Review: 1932), ..................................................................... 17 Norman Chever, A manual of Medical Jurisprudence for Bengal and North Western provinces( 3 rd^ edn.,Bengal Military Press: 2004) ................................................................. 19

StStaatteemmeenntt ooff JJuurriissddiiccttiioonn XII

SS^ T ATA TT EE MM EE NN TT OO FF^ JJ^ U RUR II SS DD II CC TT II OO NN

THE PETITIONER HAS INVOKED THE JURISDICTION OF THE HON‟BLE HIGH COURT OF

ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW UNDER AARRTTIICCLLEE 222266 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND THE RESPONDENTS HUMBLY SUBMIT TO THE

JURISDICITON AS INVOKED BY THE PETITIONER.

StStaatteemmeenntt ooff FFaaccttss XIII

SS^ TT AA TT EE MM EE NN TT OO FF^ FF^ A CAC TT SS

1. The petitioner Prabha Devi, aged about 51 years, is a resident of Lucknow from the Jain community who suffers from Liver Cancer. The petitioner took voluntary retirement from the post of a Lecturer in a City College.
2. The petitioner unlike any other cancer patient undergoes chemotherapy and radiation treatment and the experts hold the opinion that she may recover provided the treatment is continuous, especially if performed at a reputed cancer treatment centre at the United States.
3. Since, the cost of treatment has taken a heavy toll on family income and savings, making it difficult for them to continue the treatment so the petitioner undertakes the vow of santhara to end her life which in a consequence will put an end to her miseries. In furtherance to her object of self- destruction she denied food, water and medication.
4. The family somehow managed to withhold the information of the commission of the cognizable offence in their presence. But, they couldn‟t cling to that state of affairs for too long and it came to the notice of the city administration.
5. The police intervened and broke the ritual by force feeding Prabha Devi, as force feeding was the only option left since she was not conceding to the persistent requests of the relatives to eat food. The police, however, did not lodge a case on the ground that she was reeling under severe ailment and that an attempt to suicide was prevented by the necessary action, but the petitioner was warned of penal consequences if the act was ever repeated.
6. Consequently, the petitioner stubbornly files a writ petition before the Hon‟ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench.

StStaatteemmeenntt ooff IIssssuueess VIII

SS^ TT AA TT EE MM EE NN TT OO FF^ II^ S SSS UU EE SS

I. WHETHER THE PRACTICE OF SANTHARA ENJOYS PROTECTION UNDER CONSTITUTIONAL

PROVISIONS.

II. WHETHER THE ADMINISTRATIVE INTERVENTION WAS IN BREACH OF THE PETITIONERS

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO OBSERVE HER RELIGIOUS PRACTICE.

SuSummmmaarryy ooff (^) AArrgguummeennttss IX

SS^ UU MM MM AA RR YY OO FF^ AA^ RR GG UU MM EE NN TT SS

I. I. WWHHEETT HHEERR TTHHEE PPRRAACCTTIICCEE OOFF SSAANNTTHHAARRAA EENNJJOOYYSS PRPROOTTEECCTTII OONN UNUNDDEERR CCOONNSSTTIITTUUTTI OIONNAALL^ PPRROOVVIISSIIOONNSS^ ..

The practice of Santhara is unconstitutional as it vehemently violates the principles of Article 21 which ensures right to life, whereas Santhara is a practice that encourages suicide by individual in name of religion. There is no evidence to suggest that Santhara is a essential practice of Jain religion, removal of such illegal practice would not change the principles enshrined in Jain religion.

No such practice in name of religion enjoys protection under Article 25 of Indian Constitution. And, contending that such practice is performed with one‟s home, would not amount to breach of privacy as police has such powers to stop such illegal activity.

IIII.. WWHEHETT HHEERR TTHHEE ADADMMII NNIISSTTRRATATIIVVEE IINNTTEERRVVEENNTTIIOONN WWASAS IINN BBRREEAACCHH OOFF TTHHEE PPEETTIITTIIOONNEE RRSS^ FFUUNNDDAAMMEENNTTAALL^ RRII GGHHTT^ T OTO OOBBSSEE RRVVEE HHEERR RREELLII GGIIOOUUSS PPRRAACCTTIICCEE^ ..

The local police of the State of U.P. is empowered under § 149 the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as under § 23 the Indian Police Act, 1861 to prevent the commission of cognizable offences. As an attempt to suicide (§ 309 of IPC) is a cognizable offence as per Schedule – I of the code, hence the police were justified in preventing the commission by using a reasonable force against the petitioner (offender) and force feeding her.

That the petitioner never had a spiritual motive behind the practice of santhara but the ill intent to end her life which in consequence might end her miseries. The ill-practice is cloaked in the guise of religious sanction which is a sham, because there is no pride in committing suicide. And, lastly that our constitution does not provide a right to extinguish one‟s life while enumerating the right to life.

ArArgguummeennttss AAddvvaanncceedd 1

AA^ R GRG UU MM EE NN TT SS^ AA^ D VDV AA NN CC EE DD

The courts have the power to determine whether a particular rite or observance is regarded as essential by the tenets of a particular religion.^1

I. WWHHEETT HHEERR TT HHEE PPRRAACCTTIICCEE OFOF SSAANNTTHHAARRAA ENENJJOOYYSS PRPROOTTEE CCTTIIOONN UUNNDDEE RR CCOONNSSTTIITTUUTTII OONNAALL PPRROOVVIISISIOONNSS ..

1. Santhara is a practice where an individual‟s takes a vow to fast until death in name of religion. The sanctity of life which has been held in number of cases by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court ceases to exist in such type of religious activity. United States which is considered to be the mother of liberty was also provisions to restrict such illegal activity in name of religion.
2. The first Amendment to America‟s Constitution (1791) says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or…prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
3. The freedom to practice religion taken to an extreme can be used as a license for illegal conduct. But even when the conduct stems from deeply held conviction, government resistance to it is understandable. The inevitable result is a clash between religion freedom and social order.^2

(^1) Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta v. Commissioner of Police, (1983) 4 SCC 522: AIR 1984 SC 51; see Also SCC 770. Commissioner of Police v. Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta, AIR 2004 SC 2984: (2004) 12 (^2) THE CHALLENGE TO DEMOCRACY (Government of America) by Janda, Berry and Goldman, Chap XVII, “Order and Civil Liberties” at pg. 627-

ArArgguummeennttss AAddvvaanncceedd 2

4. In the case of Cantwell v. State of Connecticut,^3 the US Supreme Court clarified the legality of any statute or law and the grounds on which it can be struck down. “Religious belief is absolute except a person from the sweep of criminal law where the practice resulting from such belief affects the public at large. Religious belief, in short, is no defense to an offence created by a valid statute, unless so provided by the statute itself.^4 .”
5. While the First Amendment freedom to exercise religion against state in absolute terms, it is however, that while freedom of belief may be conceded to be absolute, the state cannot allow that belief to be followed by absolute freedom to act according to such belief, if the state has to protect public order, health and morals. The Court had, therefore, to intervene to hold that while freedom of belief was absolute, freedom to act in the expression of such belief was subject to regulation in exercise of the State‟s “police powers”^5.
6. Freedom of Religious belief and to act in the exercise of such belief cannot override the interests of peace, order or morals of the society and to that extent, the freedom of religion is subject to the control of the State^6 A. A. ThThaatt pprraaccttiiccee ooff SSaanntthhaarraa coconnttrraaddiiccttss tthhee ffuunnddaammeennttaall ssppiirriitt ooff AArrtt.. 2 21 1..
7. No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Where any religious practice which is against the law can be struck down no matter how essential it is a part of a religion. The case of (^3) (1939) 310 US 296 (303); also referred in Fowler v. Rhode Island, (1953) 345 US 67 and Torcaso v. Watkins, 4 (1961) 367 US 488.

5 Reynolds^ v.^ U.S ., (1879) 98 US 145. supra fn Durga Das Basu, 2 Commentary on The Constitution of India^ ( vol 3, LexisNexis: 2008), pp .3450; also refer (^6) Board of Education v. Barnette, (1943) 319 US 624.

ArArgguummeennttss AAddvvaanncceedd 3

Adelaide Company of Jehovah's Witnesses v. The Commonwealth,^7 discuss the evil practices in name of religion. The judgment of Latham C. J. the Australian Supreme Court, contains a useful and illuminating discussion of the ambit of religious liberty “ At all periods of human history there have been religions which have involved practices which have been regarded by large number of people as essentially evil and wicked. Many religions involve the idea of sacrifice and the practice of sacrifice has assumed the form of human sacrifice or animal sacrifice as appears in the Old Testament, and in many other sacred writings and traditions. So also religions have differed in their treatment of polygamy. Polygamy was not reproved in the Old Testament; it has been part of the Mormon religion; it is still an element in the religion of millions of Mohammedans, Hindus, and other races in Asia. The criminal religions in India are well-known. The thugs of India regarded it as a religious duty to rob and kill. The practice of Suttee, involving the immolation of the widow upon the funeral pyre of her husband, was for centuries a part of the Hindu religion."

8. Though above contention regard a very harsh view, but it is important to understand the fundamental language of Art. 21 which state that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty eexxcceepptt aaccccoorrddiinngg ttoo pprroocceedduurree eessttaabblliisshheedd bbyy llaaww. Special emphasis should be laid on the word, except according to procedure established by law. Therefore it is emphasized that a life^8 of any individual can only be taken according to the procedure established by law.

(^7) 67 CLR 116 (^8) We have already extracted a passage from the judgment of Field, J. in Munn v. Illinois, (1877) 94 U.S, where the learned Judge Pointed out that "life" in the 5th and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution corresponding to Article 21, means not merely the right to the continuance of a person's animal existence, but a right to the possession of each of his organs-his arms and legs etc. We do not entertain any doubt that the word "life" in

ArArgguummeennttss AAddvvaanncceedd 4

9. It is humbly submitted that although fasting is a part of Indian culture, made famous by independence leader Mahatma Gandhi, who took up hunger strikes in protest against British rule, laws do not permit euthanasia or suicide. Ultimate result of this practice in cloak of religion is death of individual, a voluntary practice taken up by a Jain individual which results in death. Jains claim that Santhara is the most ideal, peaceful, and satisfying form of death. Many Jain religious leaders contend that when a person commits suicide, it is usually in anger or depression. The act of suicide is conducted by isolating oneself from the world and the purpose can be given in a suicide note^9. But it is asserted that in majority of cases Santhara is practices by aged women^10 who have atleast suffered a trauma.
10. In the case of District Registrar and Collector v. Canara Bank,^11 it was held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court that life and liberty can only be curtailed by satisfying the triple test:- a) It must prescribe a procedure b) The procedure must withstand the test of one or more of the fundamental rights conferred under Art. 19 which maybe applicable in a given situation.

Article 21 bears the same signification. Is then the word "personal liberty" to be construed as excluding from itspurview an invasion on the part of the police of the sanctity of a man's home and an intrusion into his personal security and his right to sleep which is the normal comfort and a dire necessity for human existence even as ananimal? It might not be inappropriate to refer here to the words of the preamble to the Constitution that it is designed to "assure the dignity of the individual" and therefore of those cherished human value as the means ofensuring his full development and evolution. We are referring to these objectives of the trainers merely to draw attention to the concepts underlying the Constitution which would point to such vital words as "personal liberty"having to be construed in a reasonable manner and to be attributed that sense which would promote and achieve those objectives and by no means to stretch the meaning of the phrase to square with any preconceived notionsor doctrinaire constitutional theories. (^9) Wikipedia, “Santhara” (available http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Santhara [accessed August 18, 2011]) (^10) Prakash Bhandari, “ Another Jain Woman on fast unto Death” (available http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2006-09-30/india/27821360_1_ritual [accessed August 16,2011]) “ A day after 60-year-old Shwetambar Jain woman Vimla Devi BhansaliSanthara -jain-festival-age-old-jain- died while on terminal fast under the faith's Santhara tradition in the Pink City, another case has come to lightof 93-year-old woman, who has given up food and water for the past 24 days under this ritual”. (^11) (2005)1 SCC 496

ArArgguummeennttss AAddvvaanncceedd 5

c) It must also liable to be tested with reference of Art.14.

11. The procedure established by law for deprivation of rights conferred by Art.21 must be fair, just and reasonable^12. In the case of Krishnan v. State of Madras,^13 it was decided that “Procedure established by law‟ in Art.21 means the law prescribed by parliament at any given point. Parliament only has the power to change its procedure by enacting a law, by amending it and when the procedure is so changed it becomes the „procedure established by law”.
12. The term Law here signifies “Law^14 ” made by the legislature in accordance with its ordinary legislative procedure. Also in the case of Gopalan v. State of Madras,^15 it was observed Law in this expression means state made-law or enacted law and not the general principles of natural justice^16. Procedure established by law thus means procedure prescribed by legislature. And held:- “Art.21 affords no protection against competent legislative action in the field of substantive criminal law, for there is no provision for judicial review, on the grounds of reasonableness or otherwise of such laws…”
13. Similarly, in Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi,^17. It was held thus:

(^12) Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municial Corporation , AIR 1986 SC 180 (^13) AIR 1951 SC 301; also referred in State of U.P. v. Shah Md. , AIR 1969 SC 1234 (1238) (^14) “ The expression “‟Law” does not include within itself ordinance, order, bye-laws, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage having the force of law nor Amendment of Constitution in accordance with the prescribed Art.368” ; Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461. (^15) (1950) SCR 88 (^16) Ram Singh v. State of Delhi, AIR 1951 SC 270 (^17) AIR 1981 SC 746; also referred in Bijaylakshmi Tripathy v. Managing Committee of Working Women Hostel,of U.P., AIR 1992 Ori 242;AIR 1993 All 171; Mohini JainInderpuri General Store v. State of Karnataka, v. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 1858; AIR 1992 J&K 11. Shaibya Shukla v. State

ArArgguummeennttss AAddvvaanncceedd 6

“We think right to life includes right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it, namely the bare necessities of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter and facilities for reading, writing and expressing oneself in diverse forms, freely moving about, mixing and commingling with fellow human being. Right to life must include right to carry on such functions and activities to constitute the bare minimum necessities of human self”.

14. When there is a constitutional^18 guarantee that is so sacrosanct in nature, it cannot therefore be said to include such activities like Santhara within its meaning and nature of religious guarantee. The Hon‟ble Supreme in plethora of cases has held that guarantees given under Art.21 should not be confused with religious freedom especially when these freedoms are followed by corrupt practices.
15. If Art. 21 confers on a person the right to live a dignified life, does it also confer a right not to live if the person chooses to end his life? If so, then what is the fate of the provisions in the penal code making attempt to commit suicide penal?
16. Hon‟ble Supreme Court tried to resolve this controversy in P. Rathinam v. Union of India,^19 while addressing the controversy on the relationship. This view constituted an authority for the proposition that an individual has the “right to do as he pleases with his life and to end it if he so pleases. A person cannot be forced to enjoy right to life to his detriment, disadvantage or disliking”. The Court argued that the word life in Art. 21 means “right to live with human dignity and the same does not merely connote continued drudgery. Thus the Court concluded that the right to live of which Art. 21 speaks of can be said to bring in its trail the right not to live with forced life”.

(^1819) The Constitution of India. AIR 1994 SC 1844.

ArArgguummeennttss AAddvvaanncceedd 7

17. The above radical view could not last for long. The Rathinam^20 ruiling came to be reviewed by full bench of the Court in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab.^21 The question arose that if attempt to commit suicide is not regarded as penal then what happens to someone who abets suicide, since abetment to commit suicide is made punishable under § 306 of Indian Penal Code. The Court observed:- “…Right to life is a natural right embodied in Art. 21 but suicide is an unnatural termination or extinction of life and, therefore, incompatible and inconsistent with the concept of right to life”
18. In Gian Kaur^22. The Supreme Court has distinguished between euthanasia and attempt to commit suicide. Euthanasia is termination of life of a person who is terminally ill or in a persistent vegetative condition^23. In such a case, death due to termination of natural life is a certain and imminent fact. The process of natural death has commenced, it is only reducing the period of suffering during the process of natural death. This is not the case of extinguishing life but only of accelerating conclusion of the process of natural death which has already begun. But this cannot be equated with right to die an unnatural death curtailing the natural span of life.
19. Similarly in case of Malak Singh v. State of Punjab & Haryana, 24 it was held “ We may notice here that interference in accordance with law and for the prevention of

(^20) Ibid. (^21) 1996 (2) SCC 648 (^22) Supra 19 (^23) (Persistent vegetative state). Wikipedia. A persistent vegetative state is a disorder of consciousness in which patients with severeawareness. It is a diagnosis of some uncertainty in that it deals with a brain damage who were in acoma progress to a state of partial syndrome arousal. After four weeks in rather than true a vegetative state (VS), the patient is classified as in a persistent vegetative state. This diagnosis is classified asa permanent vegetative state (PVS) after approximately 1 year of being in a Persistent Vegetative State. [last visited on 16.08.2011]. 24 MANU/SC/0157/1980 : 1981CriLJ 320

ArArgguummeennttss AAddvvaanncceedd 8

disorder and crime is an exception recognised even by European Convention of Human Rights to the right to respect for a person's private and family life."

20. It is pertinent to mention that even though right to privacy is covered within the ambit of Art. 21, but if any illegal act takes place within the four walls, then Police has right to interfere with privacy of that individual. Right to privacy is not absolute and can be curtailed when there is an apprehension that a potential crime is or can take place.
21. In the case of Smt. Selvi and Ors. v. State of Karnataka, 25 the judicial understanding of privacy in our country has mostly stressed on the protection of the body and physical spaces from intrusive actions by the State. While the scheme of criminal procedure as well as evidence law mandates interference with physical privacy notwithstanding this, it concluded that this right to privacy is not in existence under the Constitution, with Ayyangar, J laying down that: “The right of privacy is not guaranteed under our Constitution and therefore the attempt to ascertain the movements of an individual which is merely a manner in which privacy is invaded is not an infringement of fundamental right guaranteed by Part III”.^26
22. Right to privacy is an essential component of the right to life but it is not absolute and may be restricted for prevention, disorder or protection of health or morals or protections of rights and freedom of others.^27

(^25) 2010 (2) Crimes 241 (SC) (^26) S upra f.n. 22. (^27) ‘X’ v Hospital ‘Z’ , (1998) 8 SCC 296, (¶ 28).

ArArgguummeennttss AAddvvaanncceedd 9

B. B. ThThaatt pprrootteeccttiioonn uunnddeerr AArrtt.. 2 25 5 iiss eennssuurreedd wwhheenn aa rreelliiggiioouuss bbeelliieeff oorr pprraaccttiiccee fu fullffiillss cceerrttaaiinn pprreerreeqquuiissiittee.. The respondent submits that every individual has the following enshrined fundamental rights. Firstly, Freedom to practice a religion of his choice [B.1] and freedom of conscience [B.2].

B B.1. 1 FrFreeeeddoomm ttoo PPrraaccttiiccee aa rreelliiggiioonn ooff hhiiss cchhooiiccee..

23. The Courts have interpreted the clause to be subject to some limitations which are necessary in the interest of society itself. “However free the exercise of religion may be, it must be subordinate to the criminal law of the country, passed with reference to actions regarded by general consent as properly the subjects of punitive legislation”.^28
24. Freedom of Religion would not allow a man to commit human sacrifice^29 even though human sacrifice is sanctioned by some religious creed (some people in India are adherents of a set of theistic philosophies called Tantrism which forms the basis and founding philosophies of all Tantric cults both Hindu and Buddhist. Most either use animal sacrifice or symbolic effigies, but a minority continue to practice human sacrifice despite the risk of prosecution^30 ); or to commit an act which is a crime under penal law^31
25. It is submitted before this Court that in the case of The Commissioner Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Shri Lakshimindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri

(^28) Davis v. Beason, (1890) 133 US 333 (^29) Saifuddin v. State of Bombay, AIR 1962 SC 853 (^30) According to the Hindustan Times , there was an incident of human sacrifice in western Uttar Pradesh in

2003. Similarly, police in 31 Khurja reported "dozens of sacrifices" in the period of half a year in 2006. Division Department of Human ResourcesArver^ v.^ US,^ (1918) 245 US 366;^ also referred in v. Smith ., (1990) 494 US 879.^ Reynolds^ v.^ US ., (1978) 98 US 145;^ Employment