Team code: BIL05P

BHARATH INSTITUTE OF LAW MEMORIAL DRAFTING COMPETITION

BEFORE THE HON‟BLE

SUPREME COURT OF HILLWOOD

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION

OF HILLWOOD

IN THE MATTERS OF

NGO (PEACE) ........................................................................................................ PETITIONER

V.

STATE OF HILLWOOD........................................................................................ RESPONDENTS

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON‘BLE SUPREME COURT OF HILLWOOD

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

Memorandum for the Petitioner 1

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents… ........................................................................................................................ 2

List of Abbreviations ....................................................................................................................... 3

Index of Authorities…..................................................................................................................... 4

Statement of Jurisdiction ..................................................................................................................7

Statement of Facts… ..................................................................................................................... ..8

Questions presented…………………………………………………………………………………10

Summary of Pleadings…............................................................................................................... 11

Pleadings ....................................................................................................................................... 12

2
 LIST OF ABBREVIATION

Para Paragraph
Mad Madras
AIR All India Reporter
Art. Article
Ano. Another
Hon‘ble Honorable
ed. Editor
& And
Corp. Corporation
v. Versus
IPC Indian Penal Code
BOM Bombay
ICODHR International Convention on Declaration of
Human Rights
ICSCR- OP Optional Protocol of the Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

ICCR Indian Council for Cultural Relations

J. Justice
Ltd. Limited
UOI Union Of India

Anr Another
Ors. Others
HC High Court

SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCR Supreme Court Reporter
Supl. Supplementary

3
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

LEGISLATIONS REFERRED

1. THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950

2. INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

BOOKS REFERRED

1. FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND THEIR ENFORCEMENT [UDAI RAJ RAI]

2. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA M.P. SINGH, V.N. SHUKLA‘S [11TH ED.2008]
3. THE INDIAN PENAL CODE [T.BHATTACHARYYA]
4. A.SABITHA, PUBLIC HEALTH: ENFORCEMENT AND LAW [1ST ED. 2008]
5. ARVIND P. DATAR, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA [2D ED.2007]
6. DARREN J O BYRNE, HUMAN RIGHTS: AN INTRODUCTION [1ST ED.2003]
7. DR.L.M.SINGHVI, FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
[1SED.1971]
8. DURGA DAS BASU, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA [8TH ED 2007]
9. DURGA DAS BASU, HUMAN RIGHTS IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW [3RD ED. 2008]
10. JAYANT CHAUDARY, HANDBOOK OF HUMAN RIGHTS [1ST ED. 2012]
11. H.M. SEERVAI, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA[4TH ED. 2008]
12. M. HIDYATULLAH, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA [1ST ED. 1984]

TREATIES AND CONVENTION

1. UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS [UN], 1948

2. AMERICAN DECLARATION OF RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF MAN [OAS], 1948
3. COMMITTEE ON THE ELIMINATION OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN
[CEDAW]
4. COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE[CAT]

4
 5. COMMITTEE ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD [CRC]
6. INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE

WEBSITES REFERRED
www.manuoatra.com
www.indiankanoon.com
www.lexisnexis.com/in/legal
www.scconline.co.in
www.oxforddictionaries.com

CASES REFFERED
1. Maneka Gandhi V. Union of India, 1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621
2. Romesh thappar v. The State of Madras, 1950 AIR 124,1950 SCR 594
3. Sunil batra v. Delhi Administration, 1980 AIR 1579, 1980 SCR (2)557
4. Bandhua mukti morcha v. Union of India, 1984 AIR 802, 1984 SCR (2) 67
5. Peoples‘s Union for Democratic Rights V. Union of India AIR 1982 SC 1473
6. Sri Venkataramana devaruand v. The State of Mysore, 1958 AIR 255,1958 SCR 895
7. Sheela barse v. stste of Maharashtra, 1983 AIR 378, 1983 SCR (2) 337
8. A.S. Narayana deekshitulu v. state of Andhra Pradesh, 1996 AIR 1765, JT 1996 (3) 482
9. Pannalal Bansilal Patil v. The State of A.P, AIR 1996 SC 1023
10. Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of kerala,[2018(8) SCJ 609]
11. Sunita Tiwari v. Union of India
12. Shayara bano v. Union of India, [(2016) 2 SS 725]
13. Sardar Syedna v. State of Bombay,[AIR 1962 SC 853]
14. Manoj narula v. Union of India, (2005) 7 SCC 52
15. Chief Justice Sunil Ambwani and Justice v. Siradhana,
16. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149, 1981 SUPP (1) SCC 87, 1982 2 SCR 365
17. Yasmeen zuber ahmad peerzade & Anr petitioner v. Union of India & Ors
18. Shayara bano v. UOI, (2016) 2SS 725
19. Sardar syedna v. State of Bombay, (AIR 1962 SC 853)
20. C.R.H.Readymoney ltd. And Anr v. state of Bombay, AIR 1958 BOM 181,(1957) 59 BOMLR

5
 786, 1958 CrilJ 607,ILR 1958 BOM 128
21. K.P.Hussain Reddy and Ors. V. Executive Engineer, 2003 (1) ALD 43, 2003 (3) ALT 143
22. State of Gujarat v. Govindbhai Jakhubhai and Anr, 2000ACJ 1305, AIR 1999 Guj 316,(2000) 2
GLR 1085
23. Basheshar Nath v. The Commissioner, 1959 SCR SUPL. (1) 528
24. A.K.Roy, etc v. UOI and Anr, 1982 AIR 710, 1982 SCR (2) 272
25. A.G.Kazi and Ors. V. C.V. Jethwani,AIR 1967 Bom 235,(1966) 68 BOMLR 529
26. Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. and others, AIR 1963 SC 1295
27. Vithalrao Udhaorao Uttarwar and v. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1977 BOM 99

6
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE PETITIONER HUMBLY SUBMITS TO THE JURISDICTION OF THIS

HONOURABLE COURT UNDER ART 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION. THE PETITIONER
HAS APPROACHED THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN APPREHENSION OF THE
VIOLATION OF BASIC HUMAN FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS THEREFORE, THE
PETITIONER MAINTAINS THAT THE JURISDICTION OF ART 32 OF THE
CONSTITUTION, WHICH PROTECTS THE CITIZENS OF INDIA FROM ANY
VIOLATION OF THEIR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS, IS APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT
CASE.

7
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Hillwood is a nation with the population of 10 million, 20% of which practices/belongs to the
Religion Zensufi. Zensufi religion further has two classifications/categories/sections, zen and
Gen. Aerith is a 13 year old school going girl who lives in the state of Brussels of Hillwood. She
celebrated her 13th birthday on 14-10-2-22 by inviting all her friend to her home, and everyone
had a god time. After a week post all these events, her teachers came to know that she was
subjected to a religious practice called ―ANTAHK‖ by her family members. Antakh which
means circumcision is a barbaric process which involves the removal of either parts of or the
entire gentalia of a woman. Zen community to which Aerith belongs has been practicing this
ritual as a part of their religion for a long period of time. The practice aims to ‗regulate female
sexuality and moderate sexual desires‘.

2. Ramgarh is a small town in the State of Rajputanagarh in the northern part of Hillwood.
Ramgarh is also known for the Sufi movement which demonstrates cultural practices which were
heavily criticized by the society at that time but it still continues to thrive. It is the belief of the
followers that it is only through these practices that nearness to the Almighty can be attained. Mr.
Mahadev is a devout follower of Ahinsaism and is greatly influenced by the teachings contained
in the Book of Ahinsa. One of the most essential legal practices of Ahinsaism is ‗Manatana‘
according to which the followers after completing the age of 50 decide to let go of all the worldly
pleasures including food and hence end their lives to attain moksha.

3. Mahadev is also an employee of a multinational company. He often made complaints to the

management that his company indulged in practices which resulted in environmental destruction.
The long working hours at his office disturbed his psychological wellbeing and he had to take the
assistance of a psychiatrist because of that. And was into depression. One day decided to opt for
‗Manatana‘ which according to him was the pathway to God, for the purpose of saving his life, a
complaint was filed to the police against Mr. Mahadev But the police officers refused to file the
FIR under section 309 of IPC because ‗Manatana‘ is regarded as an essential religious practice of
Ahinsaism. Hillwood has a state called Saakar in which there is a district known as Narina. The
district is popularly known for their ―FIREWALKING‖ and ―LANCE PIERCING‖ ritual which
8
 will be conducted once in a year with enormous population and they believe. Veera is a 42-year-
old man and has 2 children Zaara [15 years] and Aaditya [17 years] were living in slum area at
Narina. Veera never failed to attend the ―Firewalking‖ and Lance piercing‖ ceremony. This year
Veera planned to make Zaara and Aaditya participate in the ―Firewalking‖ and Lance piercing‖
ceremony. Aaditya tried to convince his father that he has an upcoming competition in 15 days
and this will severely injure his feet and Zaara was worried about her exams.

4. On 30th January 2022 at 11:00AM the ceremony was ready to get started, Veera is making sure
of the procedures and gave a head start of the ―Firewalking‖ ceremony and ―Lance piercing‖
followed by him Aaditya started his walk but suddenly a person behind Aaditiya made a run and
tripped his foot and fell down by grabbing Aaditya. Aaditya as a result of his fall got burnt
particles stuck into his eyes and lost his vision and suffered severe ligament tear in his knees and
ankle. On the other hand Zaara after Lance piercing she was unable to eat. Further, she got
admitted in the hospital and found to be anemic. Thus, she was unable to attend her examination.

5. Now, these four religious practice (Antahk, Manatana, Firewalking and Lance piercing) followed
across the country became a sensational news in the social media and magazines by a slogan of
#cruel religious practice. ‗PEACE‘ is a NGO which has been continuously working for more
than twenty years against superstitious belief and religious practices which are cruel to mankind
that is followed by the Hillwood‘s citizens. This NGO filed a PIL before the Hon‘ble Supreme
Court under Article 32 of Constitution of Hillwood against various religious practices such as
Antahk, Manatana, Firewalking and Lance piercing followed by people of various religions all
around the country which are cruel to mankind and violating several fundamental rights of the
followers. The petition has been filed before the Hon‘ble Supreme Court of Hillwood.

9
 QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Whether the PIL petition filed by the petitioner is maintainable before this apex court?

2. Whether customary law of Antahk, Fire walking and Lance piercing violates the
fundamental right of an individual and protected as an essential religious practice?

3. Whether the practice of Antahk discriminates against women and girls and violates
Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution?

4. Whether Manatana is an „essential legal practice‟ of Ahinsaism and contradicts Section 309
of IPC

10
 SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

1. Whether the PIL petition filed by the petitioner is maintainable before this apex court?
The petitioner most humbly submits that the petition filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution is
maintainable as a Public Interest Litigation, which has been filed with the apprehension of
violation of Fundamental Rights enshrined under Part III of the Constitution. Thus, the petition is
maintainable.
2. Whether customary law of Antahk, Fire walking and Lance piercing violates the
fundamental right of an individual and protected as an essential religious practice
It is humbly submitted before the Hon‘ble court that, the customary law of Antahk, Fire walking
and Lance piercing violates the fundamental right of an individual and protected as an essential
religious practice, because it violates the fundamental human rights as mentioned in part lll of the
Indian constitution
3. W h e t h e r t h e p r a c t i c e o f A n t a h k d i s c r i m i n a t e s a g a i n s t w o m e n a n d
girls and violates Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon‘ble Court that, Article 14 and Article 15 of the
Constitution have been violated on account of a The petitioner humbly submits before the
supreme court that the Cruel practice of Antahk discriminates against women and girls and
violates Article 14 and 15 of the constitution. However, this Article does not prevent the State
from making any special provisions for women or children. The practice also violates the rights
to health, security and physical integrity of the person, the right to be free from torture and cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment, and the right to life when the procedure results in death.
4. Whether Manatana is an essential legal practice of ahinsaism and contradicts section 309 of
IPC?
The petitioner humbly submits before the supreme court that no MANATANA is not an essential
legal practice and it is punishable under section 309 of IPC. As a key ingredient of this section is
'intention' of Mahadev who tried to commit suicide. Suicide must be intentional self-destruction
of life. Hence, Attempt must be intentional and it was done by Mahadev in order to end his life.
Mahadev was also into depression so this incident which has occurred cannot be considered as
an essential legal practice as he tried to commit suicide as he was into depression.

11
 Statement of Jurisdiction

PLEADINGS

1. Whether the PIL petition filed by the petitioner is maintainable before this apex court?
The present petition is maintainable under Article 32 of the Constitution1, since it falls within the
ambit of ―other authorities‖ as enshrined under Art.12 of the Constitution. There will be violation
of Fundamental Rights if the project is taken on floors. Public Function is one which ―seeks to
achieve some collective benefit for the public or a section of the public‖2. Any institutions
engaged in performing public functions are, by virtue of the functions performed, can be termed
as government agencies3. Further under the well-established doctrine of Parens Patriae, it is the
obligation of the State to protect and take into custody the rights and the privileges of its citizens
for discharging its obligations4. Thus, in this present case, in the state of Hillwood people‘s
fundamental rights have been violated. So, the PIL petition filed before the apex court is
maintainable.
1.1. The petition has been filed in public interest and therefore maintainable as Public Interest
Litigation
To invoke the jurisdiction of the SC is not necessary that the fundamental right must have been
actually infringed- a threat to the same would be sufficient.5Applying the doctrine of ‗reasonable
apprehension‘, this Hon‘ble Court may interfere directly in the said case. The most fundamental
right of an individual is his right to life; if an administrative decision may put his life at risk, the
basis for the decision surely calls for the most anxious scrutiny according to the principle of
‗anxious scrutiny‘6. Thus, the petitioned filed before this apex court is maintainable In Indian
law, it PIL means litigation for the protection of public interest. It is litigation introduced in court
of law, not by the aggrieved party but by the court itself. Such cases may occur when the victim
does not have the necessary resources to commence litigation or his freedom to move to court
has been suppressed. The court can itself take cognisance of the matter and proceed on the
petition of any public spirited individual.

1
Constitution of India, parimateriato Constitution of India [herein after referred as constitution]
2
Binnyltd.And Anr. vs sadasivan and Ors AIR 2005 SC 320
3
Sukhdev and Ors v. bhagatram and Ors AIR 1975 SC 1331
4
Charan lal sahuv.Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1480
5
Roop chand v. state of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 1503; Manganbhai v. UOI AIR 1969 SC 783; D.A.V college v. state of Punjab AIR 1971 S
1731
6
Bugdaycay 1987 AC 514, where lord bridge said at 531 E-G
Memorandum for the Petitioner 12
 1.2. Alternative Remedy Not A Bar
Where there is well-founded allegation that fundamental right has been infringed alternative
remedy is no bar for entertaining writ petition and granting relief.7 The mere existence of an
adequate alternative legal remedy cannot be a good and sufficient ground for throwing out a
petition under Art. 32 if the existence of a fundamental right and a breach, actual or threatened,
of such right and is alleged is prima facie established on the petition8. In spite of availability of
the alternative remedy, the court may exercise its jurisdiction in at least petitions where the
petitioner seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights 9. Thus, the petitioner humbly
submits that writ petition is maintainable as existence of alternative remedy is not a bar.

It has accordingly been held by this Court in Romesh Thappar v. The State of Madras 10 (2)
that under the Constitution this Court is constituted the protector and guarantor of fundamental
rights and it cannot, consistently with the responsibility so laid upon it, (1) [1950] S.C.R. 566.
(2) [1950] S.C.R. 594. Refuse to entertain applications seeking the protection of this Court
against infringement of such rights, although such applications are made to this Court in the first
instance without resort to a High Court having concurrent jurisdiction in the matter. The mere
existence of an adequate alternative legal remedy cannot per se be a good and sufficient ground
for throwing out a petition under Art. 32, if the existence of a fundamental right and a breach,
actual or threatened, of such right is alleged and is prima facie established on the petition.

1.3. The jurisdiction of the SC under Art. 32 of the Constitution extends to violation of the
rights alleged in the present matter
1.3.1. Violation of the right of the Hillwood people
The fundamental right to equality11 enshrined under Art. 14 of the Constitution have been
violated because of the steps taken for the implementation of the project. Everyone has the right
to freedom of speech and expression as enshrined under Art. 19 will be violated because of these
cruel religious rituals. The fundamental right to livelihood12 that the protection of life and
personal liberty. No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to

7
State of Bombay v. united motors ltd. AIR 1953 SC 252
8
K.K. Kouchunni v. state of madras AIR 1959 SC 725
9
Harbansalsahnia v. Indian oil corporation ltd. AIR 2003 SC 2120
10
Romesh Thappar v. The State of Madras
11
Maneka Gandhi v. UOI AIR 1978 SC 597
12
Olga tellis v. Bombay municipal corp, AIR 1986 SC 180
13
 procedure established by law13, which is enshrined under Art. 21 of the Constitution will be
violated on the account of these religious rituals. The fundamental right to protect the interest of
the minorities14 enshrined under Art. 29(1) will be violated again by the action of the state.
Article 39(a) in The Constitution Of India 1949 That the citizens, men and women equally, have
the right to an adequate means to livelihood15; Article 13 of the Indian Constitution describes the
means for judicial review. It enjoins a duty on the Indian State to respect and implement the
fundamental right. And at the same time, it confers a power on the courts to declare a law or an
act void if it infringes the fundamental rights.

People of this Hillwood region are affected by the violation of basic fundamental rights it is the
duty of the state to ensure that every citizen of the country are treated equally and lives of these
people are protected. It‘s again the duty of the state to implement these fundamental rights.
1.1.1. Violation of rights of Hillwood people under article 21 of the Indian constitution
The Article 21 of the Constitution envisages the right to livelihood as a fundamental right. The
Supreme Court has referred to the classic judgment of Field J; wherein he stated that by the term
'life' as used means something more than mere animal existence. The inhibition against its
deprivation extends to all those limits and faculties by which life is enjoyed. Also ICCPR,
UDHR and ICESCR recognizes right to life and adequate standard of living16. Further in order to
establish violation of Article 21, the act should be subjected to the equality test of Article 14 and
test of reasonableness under Article 19 Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness because it negates
equality and permeates the entire fabric of Rule of Law17. Therefore, every action of the State
must be guided by reason for public good and not by whim, caprice, and also, there is a violation
of the article 21 of the Indian constitution. According to Article 21: ―Protection of Life and
Personal Liberty: No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to
procedure established by law.‖ This fundamental right is available to every person, citizens and
foreigners alike. Another broad formulation of life to dignity is found in Bandhua Mukti
Morcha v. Union of India. Characterising Art. 21 as the heart of fundamental rights, the Court
gave it an expanded interpretation. Bhagwati J. observed:

―It is the fundamental right of everyone in this country to live with human dignity free from
exploitation. This right to live with human dignity enshrined in Article 21 derives its life breath

13
Article 21 of the Indian constitution
14
Jagdevsinghsidhanti v. pratap singh daulta AIR 1965SC 183 PARA 188
15
Article 39[a] of the Indian constitution
16
ICCPR, UDHR and ICESCR
17
Article 14 and 19 of the Indian constitution
14
 from the Directive Principles of State Policy and particularly clauses (e) and (f) of Article 39 and
Articles 41 and 42 and at the least, therefore, it must include protection of the health and strength
of workers, men and women, and of the tender age of children against abuse, opportunities and
facilities for children to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity,
educational facilities, just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief.

The Supreme Court in Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India18, held that
non-payment of minimum wages to the workers employed in various Asiad Projects in Delhi was
a denial to them of their right to live with basic human dignity and violative of Article 21 of the
Constitution.

These are the minimum requirements which must exist in order to enable a person to live with
human dignity and no State neither the Central Government nor any State Government-has the
right to take any action which will deprive a person of the enjoyment of these basic essentials.‖
To invoke the jurisdiction of the SC is not necessary that the fundamental right must have been
actually infringed- a threat to the same would be sufficient. So the public interest litigants filed
before the Supreme Court will be maintainable as there is violation of fundamental rights of
Hillwood people.

1.1.2. Violation of rights of Hillwood people under article 19 of the Indian constitution

Article 19(1) (a) guarantees the freedom of speech and expression to all citizens19. Freedom of
speech and expression is the foundation of a democratic society and is one of the most cherished
rights of a citizen. It is the first condition of liberty and plays an important role in forming public
opinion. In the landmark case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court
said that it is possible that a right does not find express mention in any clause of Article 19(1)
and yet it may be covered by some clause of that Article. This is true for freedom of the press is
one such important fundamental right which, though not expressly mentioned, is implicit in
Article 19(1)(a). Lastly, it is noteworthy that earlier Article 19(1) provided for seven
fundamental freedoms i.e. Clause(f) provided for the freedom to hold and acquire property which
was deleted by the Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, the Constitution imposes
on the State the duty of ―providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu
religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus‖ (Constitution of

18
People union for democratic rights v. UOI
19
Article 19[1][a] of the Indian constitution
15
 India 1950:Article 25 (2)(b))20.

As a consequence, religious freedom is subject to other fundamental rights: ―No religious right
can, therefore, be claimed in contravention of the other fundamental rights.‖ As N. Bhagwati,
Chief Justice of India from 1985 to 1986, stressed, ―it was necessary to bring about social
reforms with a view to lifting India out of medievalism, obscurantism, blind superstition and
anti-social practices‖ For this, ―the secular State had to perform this historic function of
confining religion to its essential sphere,‖ and ―the Indian Constitution had, therefore, to accord
to the state power

In this matter of case, the fundamental rights of citizens have been violated that is Article 19 of
the Indian constitution which guarantees freedom of speech and expression to all citizens.
Freedom of speech is guaranteed not only by the Indian Constitution but also by international
statutes such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (declared on 10th December 1948)21,
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the European Convention on Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, etc. This is important because democracy works well only if
the people have the right to express their opinions about the government and criticize it if
needed. The voice of the people must be heard and their grievances are satisfied. Not just in the
political sphere, even in other spheres like social, cultural and economic, the people must have
their voices heard in a true democracy. In the absence of the above freedoms, democracy is
threatened. The government will become all-too-powerful and start serving the interests of a few
rather than the general public. Therefore it is humbly submitted that the present PIL that is filled
by the petitioner is maintainable before the Supreme Court

20
Constitution of India Article 25 [2][b]
21
Universal Declaration of Human Rights [declared on 10th December 1948]
16
 2. W h e t h e r t h e c u s t o m a r y l a w o f A n t a h k , f i r e w a l k i n g , a n d L a n c e
piercing violates the fundamental rights of an individual and
protected as an essential legal practice ?

The petitioner humbly submitted before the Hon‘ble court that, the customary law of Antahk,
Fire walking and Lance piercing violates the fundamental right of an individual and protected as
an essential religious practice, because it violates the fundamental human rights as mentioned in
part III of the Indian constitution22.

2.1. Customary law of Antahk, fire walking and Lance piercing violating the fundamental rights
The instances of injuries and in one instance death occurring due to people walking over burning
coals, and practicing cruel religious rituals like Lance piercing and (Antahk) female circumcision
as one once again brought the thin line between faith and superstition to fore, and the possible
intervention of the law. Religious rituals can be practiced to prove the our religious faith but no
religious ritual should be in a nature that violates the fundamental rights of the human and
affects the life of an individual, these practices of Antahk, fire walking and lance piercing have
been violating the fundamental rights of the citizen of Hillwood.
2.1.1. Fire walking into death
Cruel religious rituals like people walking over burning coals, practicing Lance piercing and
following female circumcision one once again brought the thin line between faith and
superstition to fore, and the possible intervention of the law. A more serious incident occurred on
April 22, when Basavanna sustained severe burns after he fell onto the burning coal embers that
he was walking on at festivities at the Kalikamba Temple in Mandya district. He slipped and fell
on to the burning coal. He died a few days later. Given this scenario alike cruel religious
practices of Hillwood, it is necessary that there is an urgent need to pass the Anti-Superstition
Bill to such rituals. Despite several attempts the bill was not passed, not least because of
opposition from religious groups and institutions, as well as political parties, The act of walking
over burning coals would fall within the scope of superstitious acts as defined by the law: ―any
act which causes grave physical or mental harm‖ which is enshrined under Section 358 of
IPC23:- Assault or criminal force on grave provocation that is whoever assaults or uses criminal
force to any person on grave and sudden provocation given by that person..

22
Part III of the Indian constitution 1950
23
Section 358 of IPC
17
 Govt. To ban ‘fire walk’ ritual

Chief Minister Siddaramaiah told the Legislative Assembly on Tuesday that the government
would ban ‗fire-walk‘ by devotees during annual festival of temples. In his reply to Suresh
Gowda (BJP) during the zero hour, Mr. Siddaramaiah said people had been participating in ‗fire-
walk‘ rituals in several parts of the State. ―We will ban the ritual to prevent injuries to people,‖
he said. Law and Parliamentary Affairs Minister T.B. Jayachandra said a probe had been ordered
into the incident at Hethenahalli in Tumakuru district where 70 people sustained burns in a near-
stampede situation while they were crossing a burning charcoal pit during a temple festival
recently.

2.1.2. Interface of Essential Religious practices with article 13

Places where Religious rituals that had been protected as essential religious practice but the
Supreme Court saw a marked change

In the case of Sri Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore24, the essential practice doctrine
was again made relevant. In this case, the question was regarding whether the exclusion of some
people outside Hindu temples was an essential religious practice. After examining the practices
which were essential for Hinduism, the court gave the verdict that the temple was to be open for
all Hindus. In A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh25, following the same
reasoning, the Supreme Court decided that appointment of the head of a Hindu temple on the
hereditary basis was not an essential religious practice, and the court could intervene. A similar
view was adopted in Pannalal Bansilal Patil v. The State of A.P26. Here the court ascribed
administering of religious institutions not as a religious activity, but as a secular activity.

From the above judgement it is clear that, the ancient religious ritual which was considered as
essential religious rituals are now has now marked a drastic change. Similarly the practice of
such cruel rituals like Antahk, Fire walking and lance piercing which affects the fundamental
rights of an individual should be banned.

2.1.3. Early religious practice violated the right to equality under article 14

Prohibiting women from entering temples

During ancient days there was a blind faith that menstruation is impure. And that served the

24
Sri Venkataramana Devaru v. state of mysore
25
A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu v. state of Andhra pradesh
26
Pannalal Bansilal Patil v. The State of A.P
18
 reason women were prohibited from entering into temples. According to the Memoir of the
Survey of the Travancore and Cochin States, women of reproductive age had been denied entry
to the Sabarimala temple since at least the 19th century. This is where the reasoning and the
perspective of the Supreme Court saw a marked change. The most recent and talk about the case
of the country, the Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (Sabrimala Temple
Case)27. The Supreme Court, via its seven-judge bench, has clubbed three more cases related to
the rights of religion. The court in its order attempted to strike a balance between the two
fundamental rights of the right to equality and the right to freedom of religion. Sabarimala
Case. During the hearing, the apex court observed that “what applies to a man applies to a
woman” as well and that ―once you open it for public, anyone can go‖. The bench also said that
a “woman‟s right to pray was not dependent on any law but it is a Constitutional right”. In
Goolrukh Gupta v. Burjur Pardiwala28. The petitioner, along with her friend was denied entry
into the tower of silence, a religious institution of the Parsi community after they were married to
Hindu husbands.

2.2. Cruel religious ritual of Lance piercing that has been practiced in Hillwood

The people in Hillwood believe that piercing of the body by which a metal rod is driven into the
mouth wherein by doing this they attain spiritual purity. With this metal rod on in a person, he or
she will go around the villages. There are strict restrictions for this practice of mouth piercing
which might even lead to serious injuries or life-threatening infections. But however this practice
of Mouth piercing is being done right from the time of our ancestors and so far there have been
no reports of infections among the people. In this present case Veera who is the father of two
children forcefully made them to participate in this Cruel religious practice. As a result of his fall
his son Aditya got burnt particles stuck into his eyes and lost his vision and suffered severe
ligament tear in his knees and ankle. On the other hand Zaara after Lance piercing she was
unable to eat. Further, she got admitted in the hospital and found to be anemic. Thus, she was
unable to attend her examination. From these incidents it is clear that the child rights have been
violated as veera forced their children to practice this cruel lance piercing without their consent.

A similar incident took place in Kerala and the authority took such decision, The Kerala State
Commission for Protection of Child Rights (KeSCPCR) 29 in 2016 banned the practice, noting
that it should be abolished from society, like the practice of sati. Dismissing a petition filed by

27
The Indian young lawyers Association v. State of kerala
28
Goolrukh Gupta v. Burjur Pardiwala
29
The Kerala State Commission for Protection of Child Rights (KeSCPCR)
19
 an organisation, which sought the ban to be overturned, the Kerala High Court last month
observed that children should not be subjected to any form of physical or mental suffering in the
name of such ceremonies. However, despite a ban, at least 12 households performed the ritual
this year. After this year‘s festival, the police registered a case against 23 persons for defying the
ban and performing the ritual under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act30 and Section 323 (Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt)31 of the Indian Penal Code.
―The parents and sponsors of 23 children have been booked,‖ District Police Chief S. Surendran
told The Hindu.

2.3. Antahk a Cruel religious practice which violates fundamental rights

The practice of ANTAHK by the people of Hillwood is a cruel religious ritual which violates
fundamental rights of the citizens. The practice also violates the rights to health, security and
physical integrity of the person, the right to be free from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment, and the right to life when the procedure results in death and no religious rituals can be
protected if violates the basic human rights of the citizens. Female circumcision violates
constitutional rights and promotes gender inequality. Supreme Court of India taking up several
cases of Female Genital Mutilation focused on main points:

 Female circumcision is violative of Article 21 of Indian Constitution which is a

fundamental right to life and personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution of India. It
also involves the violation of right to privacy32.

 The bodily ―integrity‖ of a girl child is lost due to this practice.

 Female circumcision abuses article 15 of Indian Constitution which is also a fundamental

right which prohibits discrimination based on caste, sex, religion or place of birth33.

 The bench pronounced that it is a crime punishable under POCSO Act34.

 Violation of women and child rights in certain cases of ―Khatna‖ or as we know as FGM
is depicted by Supreme Court35.

 Touching of female genitals except for medical purpose is perpetuating a crime which
could be thus punished by IPC and requires no any penetration.

30
Juvenile Justice [care and protection of children] Act
31
Section 323 of IPC
32
Article 21 of the Indian constitution
33
Article 15 of the indian constitution
34
POCSO Act
35
female genital mutilation, guide to eliminating FGM practice in India (lawyer‘ collective)
20
 In the case of Sunita Tiwari vs Union of India36, a public interest litigation (PIL) was filed by
the human rights advocate Sunita Tiwari for a ban of this practice of Female Genital Mutilation
that is female circumcision is the removal of the genitals of a female and in India it is widely
practiced by the Dawoodi Bohra community, a sect of Shia Muslims. She argued that the
practice is derogatory to women and violate their human rights of women and children. It is
against the right to life, personal liberty, equality and right to privacy. She also brought
forth that it violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 37. Even the World Health
Organisation considers it as a grave violation of human rights. It is a serious concern for health
issues and can cause physical and mental impairments beyond recovery. Even though we don‘t
have explicit laws for it, The United Nations general assembly in 2012 passed a resolution for
elimination of Female Genital Mutilation. Several countries like USA, Australia have banned it
but India does not have specific laws. Clearly analysing it from the face of this above case, as
well as the cruel ritual practice that is been practiced in Hillwood is a GROSS VIOLATION
OF HUMAN RIGHTS, therefore for all the right reasons, the apex court can conclude a
judicially effective judgment on the premise of basic human rights, dignity and equality.

2.3.1. Evaluating the Available Options to Invalidate Antahk

Antakh which is a cruel religious ritual is the practice is discriminatory against women, violating
Hillwood women‘s right to equality, right to privacy, and right to personal liberty. The right to
freedom of religion and propagation of religious practices does not extend to the violation of
other fundamental rights enshrined in part III of the Indian Constitution. It is high time that such
traditions that oppress women must be done away with to ensure a more egalitarian society.
While it is apparently a given that women have equal status and rights as men, it is only
distressing that they still have to advocate and fight for it. Dignity of the individual is the
unwavering premise of the fundamental rights. The Zen community has sought protection of the
practice, which they claim is an ancient and ―integral part of the religion‖ under Article 25 and
Article 26 of the Indian Constitution38.

“No body of practices can claim supremacy over the Constitution and its vision of ensuring
the sanctity of dignity, liberty, and equality.‖

36
Sunita tiwari v. union of India (W.P.(C)NO.286/2017)
37
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948
38
Article 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution
21
 3. Whether the practice of Antahk discriminates against women and girls and violates
Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution?

The petitioner humbly submits before the Supreme Court that the Cruel practice of Antahk
discriminates against women and girls and violates Article 14 and 15 of the constitution.
These articles are based on Equality rights (articles 14 – 18). Article 15 secures the citizens
from every sort of discrimination by the State, on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or
place of birth or any of them39. However, this Article does not prevent the State from making
any special provisions for women or children. The practice also violates the rights to health,
security and physical integrity of the person, the right to be free from torture and cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment, and the right to life when the procedure results in death.

3.1. Violation of Article 14 & 15 and also 21

EQUALITY RIGHTS (ARTICLES 14 – 18) Article 15 secures the citizens from every sort of
discrimination by the State, on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth or any of
them. But not in the case of Aerith and other children who belong to Hillwood region. This
barbaric ritual of female circumcision violates the right to equality and gender discrimination is
at it‘ peak. This Article does not prevent the State from making any special provisions for
women or children. The practice also violates the rights to health, security and physical integrity
of the person, the right to be free from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and
the right to life when the procedure results in death. In Hillwood the practice of female
circumcision is often linked to a ritual marking the coming of age and initiation to
womanhood. In a study conducted among women of the Dawoodi Bohra community, it
was found that religious requirements, tradition, custom and the wish to curb the girl‘s
sexuality were the main reasons for such kind of Cruel practice.

Article 25 & 26 guarantee the religious freedom but it is subjected to fundamental rights

Articles 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution guarantee the right to freedom of religion
and freedom to manage religious affairs. The individual right to religious freedom as
guaranteed under Article 2540. However, such freedom is subject to provisions of Part III
of the Indian Constitution i.e., to fundamental rights including the fundamental right to
equality and non-discrimination based on sex as Guaranteed under Articles 14 and 15 of

40
Article 25 of the Indian Constitution 1949
22
 the Indian Constitution. Such freedom is also subject to public order, morality and
health. In this case by practicing such cruel ritual by the Hillwood people, one‘s fundamental
rights are being violated.

ARTICLE 14, 15 & 21

“Article 14 – Equality before the Law: The State shall not deny to any person equality
before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India41.‖

“Article 15 – Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or

place of birth:

(1) The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race,
caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.

(2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any
of them, be subject to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regard to—

(a) Access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of public entertainment; or

(b) The use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained
wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public.

(3) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for
women and children.

(4) Nothing in this article or in clause (2) of article 29 shall prevent the State from
making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally
backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.

(5) Nothing in this article or in sub-clause (g) of clause (1) of article 19 shall prevent
the State from making any special provision, by law, for the advancement of any
socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes or
the Scheduled Tribes in so far as such special provisions relate to their admission to
educational institutions including private educational institutions, whether aided or unaided
by the State, other than the minority educational institutions referred to in clause (1) of
article 30.‖

“Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty. No person shall be deprived of his life
or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law‖ even if one
41
Article 14 of the Indian Constitution 1949
23
 assumes for the sake of argument that Female circumcision is a religious practice, such
practice is not protected under Article 25 as it violates Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the
Indian Constitution. The practice of ANTAHK by the people of Hillwood is an act that
targets women with the objective of curbing girls‘ and women‘s sexual desires and leads
to ill health effects. Women and girls are seen as objects with sexual desires that need
to be curbed to protect women and girls from being violated by other men. Such
practice is unconstitutional as it gender stereotypes women and girls and thus is violative
of their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 15 of the Indian Constitution. Such
practice, in the garb of religion and the object to protect girls and women, victimizes
women and violates their rights to physical autonomy, to be in control of their own
bodies and to be protected from physical violence and mental trauma 42 and thus is
violative of their right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

3.2. The Supreme Court about the constitutional morality of Article 26

The Court‘s task is to determine whether the measures furthered by the State in form of
legislative mandate, to augment the legitimate aim of protecting the interests of women
are proportionate to the other bulk of well settled gender norms such as autonomy,
equality of opportunity, right to privacy etc. The bottom line in this behalf would a
functioning modern democratic society which ensures freedom to pursue varied opportunities
and options without discriminating on the basis of sex, race, caste or any other like
basis.‖ The group/denomination right to religious freedom to manage one‘s own religious
affairs is guaranteed under Article 26. However, such freedom is also subject to public
order, morality and health. Article 26 read as follows:

“Article 26 - Freedom to manage religious affairs: Subject to public order, morality and
Health, every religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right:

(a) To establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes;

(b) To manage its own affairs in matters of religion;

(c) to own and acquire movable and immovable property; and

(d) To administer such property in accordance with law.‖

“Morality” in both Articles 25 and 26 refers to “constitutional morality”. The

42
Protection of children from sexual offences act 2012
24
 Supreme Court in Manoj Narula v. Union of India43 has interpreted ―constitutional
morality‖ as follows: ―The Constitution of India is a living instrument with capabilities
of enormous dynamism. It is a Constitution made for a progressive society
―Constitutional morality is not a natural Sentiment. It has to be cultivated. We must
realize that our people are yet to learn it. The principle of constitutional morality
basically means to bow down to the norms of the Constitution and not to act in a
manner which would become violative of the rule of law or reflectible of action in an
arbitrary manner.

The Supreme Court, in Sri Adi Visheshwara of Kashi Vishwanath Temple Varanasi v.
State of Uttar Pradesh44, while upholding the constitutional validity of Uttar Pradesh Sri
Kashi Vishwanath Temple, 1983 governing the management and administration of the
Vishwanath Temple that overrode customs and usages, laws, and decrees to the contrary,
held that: ―The denomination sect is also bound by the constitutional goals and they too
are required to abide by law; they are not above law. But human rights denounce it and
Article 17 of the Constitution of India abolished it and its practice in any form is a
constitutional crime punishable under civil Rights Protection Act. Article 15(2) and other
allied provisions achieve the purpose of Article 17.‖ Further, the Supreme Court in A S
Naryana Deekshitulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh45, while adjudicating upon the issue
of hereditary appointment rights of Archakas, held that: ―Though Agamas prescribed
class discriminatory placement for worship in the temples, it became obsolete after the
advent of the Constitution of India which, by Articles 14 15 17 25 and 26, that prohibit
discrimination on grounds only of caste, class, sect etc.‖ Similarly, the practice of
ANTAHK regardless of being a religious practice of the zen community or not, is subject
to constitutional morality and the zen community will have to bow to the constitutional
norms of equality and non-discrimination. Such practice will not be protected under
Article 26. Gender justice, that is non-discrimination at the very least, is part of the
constitutional morality of India. As explained earlier, the practice of ANTAHK is
violative of Articles 14 and 15 to the extent it runs counter to gender justice. It also
offends Articles 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution as it runs counter to constitutional
morality.

43
Manoj Narula v. Union of India ,(2014) 9 SCC 1
44
Sri Visheshwarw of kasha vishwanath temple Varanasi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1997 (2)SCR 1086
45
A .S Naryana Deekshitulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1996 AIR 1765, JT 1996(3) 482
25
 4. Whether Manatana is an „essential legal practice‟ of Ahinsaism and contradicts Section
309 of IPC

The petitioner humbly submits before the Supreme Court that no MANATANA is not an
essential legal practice and it is punishable under section 309 of IPC. As a key ingredient of this
section is 'intention' of Mahadev who tried to commit suicide. Suicide must be intentional self-
destruction of life46. Danger to life caused by mistake, intoxication, negligence or distraction is
not to be considered under this section. Hence, Attempt must be intentional and it was done by
Mahadev in order to end his life. Mahadev was also into depression so this incident which has
occurred cannot be considered as an essential legal practice as he tried to commit suicide as he
was into depression.

India‟s Supreme Court Suspends Ban on Starvation Ritual

India‘s Supreme Court on Monday suspended a state-level court‘s ban on a religious practice
called santhara, a fast to the death most often undertaken by the sick and aged.The high court in
the state of Rajasthan banned the practice on Aug. 10, ruling that fasting to the death was
tantamount to suicide, which is illegal in India, and that assisting someone in the fast was also a
crime: The decision angered activists representing the Jain religion, which has around six million
adherents in India. Lawyers set in motion a number of petitions to the Supreme Court, and
thousands of Jains protested last week, some carrying signs that read, ―Suicide is crime, santhara
is religion. ―India‘s top court agreed Monday to hear the case and placed a stay on the Rajasthan
ruling. The stay will probably remain in place for at least four years until the decision comes up
for a hearing, according to The Times of India, a daily newspaper. The case was initiated in 2006
by an activist who argued that the practice amounted to suicide and that relatives sometimes
forced it on family members who could no longer properly give consent.

SANTHARA is similar to starvation ritual like MANATANA

The ancient ritual of Santhara, also called Sallekhana, consists of voluntary starvation to
embrace death. The Swetambar (white sect) community, which practises the ritual, considers it
the ultimate way to attain moksha (release from the cycle of rebirth), when one believes his or
her life has served its purpose. Practised mostly by elders nearing death or having no desire to
live any more, this ritual demands the practitioner to even give up drinking water; it is never
advisable for young adults or children.On average, 240 Jains practice sallekhana until death each
year in India. The centuries-old practice has been in the eye of a storm since 2006, when after
46
Section 309 of IPC
26
 the case of 93-year-old Keila Devi Hirawat from Jaipur, there was a debate in the international
media on whether there was any place for such rituals in the modern world. Later, Soni and his
lawyer Madhav Mishra had filed their PIL in the Rajasthan High Court.

The ban on the Jain ritual came after a public interest litigation (PIL) was filed by human rights
activist and advocate Nikhil Soni in the high court in 2006. The activist claimed the ritual was a
social evil and should be considered suicide. The petitioner‘s lawyer had said Santhara, or the
ritual of giving up food and water, was in violation of the Right to Life. If euthanasia was not
allowed, the practice of Sati was banned and suicide was illegal, Santhara could not be allowed,
either. One of the concerns raised in the petition was that it was old people who usually resorted
to Santhara, and allowing an elderly person to suffer without medical assistance, food or water
was inhuman. Manatana punishable will be punishable under Section 306 and 309 IPC47
(abetment to suicide) because it is a cruel religious ritual which starves man to death which
violates the fundamental right to life.―Manatana or fast unto death is not an essential tenet of
Ahinsaism,‖ as it could be termed cruel and that it was in violation of basic human rights.

The Constitutional provisions which gets violated

While opponents of Manatana equate the practice with suicide and argue it is a fundamental
breach of Article 2148 of the Indian Constitution which guarantees the right to life, supporters
say the right to life includes a corresponding right not to live. The petitioner argues the
Constitution guarantees the right to life and protects life. The Constitution being governing law
and fountain head of the laws in India, guarantees certain freedoms as fundamental rights and
also provides for constitutional rights and duties and statutory rights under the laws made under
it.

Freedom of religion is not protected under Article 25 as it violates the right to life of an
individual

―The right to freedom of religion under Article 25 is subject to public order, morality and health.
A practice, however ancient, cannot be allowed to violate the right to life of an individual,‖ the
petitioner argued. It does not permit nor include under Article 21 the right to take one‘s own life,
nor can include the right to take life as an essential religious practice under Article 25 of the
Constitution. It is submitted that the religious belief of the Ahinsaism following community is
not protected under Article 25 of the Constitution of India, as the freedom of conscience and free

47
Section 306 and 309 of IPC
48
Article 21 of the Indian constitution, 1949.
27
 profession, practice and propagation of religion is subject to public order, morality and health
and to the other provisions of this Part, which includes Article 21 guaranteeing right to life and
which cannot be taken away either voluntarily or involuntarily. The underlying principle is that
if a person cannot give life, he has no right to take life as himself or of others.

Case judgment about Santhara, Jains‟ ritual of death which is similar to the ritual of
Manatana

The community‘s lawyers argue that Santhara has been a spiritual practice since times
immemorial and the courts must not interfere with it. Jain community members shaved their
heads as a mark of protest against the recent Rajasthan High Court order banning the religious
practice of ‗Santhara‘. The Supreme Court on Monday stayed the Rajasthan High Court‘s order
terming as illegal the Santhara (fast unto death) ritual followed by the Jain community. A Bench
of Chief Justice H L Dattu and judge Amitava Roy said: ―Issue notice. Leave granted,‖ while
staying the high court order and issuing notices to the Centre, the state of Rajasthan and others.
The Bench was hearing a batch of petitions filed by various religious bodies of Jain community
members against the high court order against Santhara. Earlier in August, the Rajasthan High
Court had made Santhara punishable under Section 306 and 309 IPC (abetment to suicide).
―Santhara or fast unto death is not an essential tenet of Jainism,‖ the court had said, adding it
could not be termed humane and that it was in violation of basic human rights.
49
In this matter of case chief justice Sunil Ambwani and Justice VS Siradhana The case at a
glance In 2006 human rights activist Nikhil Soni and his lawyer Madhav Mishra, filed a Public
Interest Litigation with the Rajasthan High Court. The PIL claimed that Sallekhana should be
considered to be suicide under the Indian legal statute. The petitioner‘s lawyer had said Santhara,
or the ritual of giving up food and water, was in violation of the Right to Life. If euthanasia was
not allowed, the practice of Sati was banned and suicide was illegal, Santhara could not be
allowed, either. Religious ritual like manatana that causes an individual to take his life is not
protected under the Constitution being governing law and fountain head of the laws in India, our
constitution guarantees certain freedoms as fundamental rights and also provides for
constitutional rights and duties and statutory rights under the laws made under it. It does not
permit nor include under Article 21 the right to take one's own life, nor can include the right to
take life as an essential religious practice under Article 25 of the Constitution50

49
chief justice Sunil Ambwani and Justice VS Siradhana
50
Article 25 of the constitution, 1949.
28
 Manatana is punishable under 309 of IPC

It is submitted that a voluntary fast unto death is an act of self-destruction, which amounts to
suicide, which is a criminal offence and is punishable under section 309 IPC with simple
imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. The abetment
of suicide is also punishable under section 306 IPC with imprisonment of the term which may
extend to ten years and also liable to fine. Suicide means an intentional killing of oneself. Every
act of self-destruction by a human being subject to discretion is, in common language described
by the word suicide provided it is an intentional act of a party knowing the probable
consequence of what he is about to do. Suicide is never to be presumed. Intention is the essential
legal ingredient under section 309 IPC. The Rajasthan Supreme Court publicly interest litigation
51
Nikhil Soni v. Union of India criminalized the traditional religious practice of the Jain
community called Santhara/Sallekhana, or fast-unto-death. The court equated Santhara to
―suicide‖ under the Indian legal code. So the of State authorities should stop the practice of
‗manatana‘ and to treat it as suicide punishable under section 309 of the Indian Penal Code and
its abetment by persons under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The State shall stop and
abolish the practice of ‗'Manatana‘ and in the form of religion in any form. Any complaint made
in this regard should be registered as a criminal case and investigated by the police, in the light
of the recognition of law in the Constitution of India and in accordance with Section 309 or
Section 306 IPC, in accordance with law.

51
Nikhil Soni v. Union of India
29
 Prayer

In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this Hon‘ble court

To be pleased:

1. To declare the customary law of Antahk discriminates women and girls, Fire walking and
Lance piercing violates the fundamental rights of the individual and are protected as an essential
religious practice.

2. To declare the ritual ‗Manatana‘ is punishable under section 309 of IPC

AND/OR

Pass any other order that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

Counsel on behalf of the petitioner

30