Facts 1. Parties To The Case

FACTS
1. Parties to the Case

a. Mr. Sureshkishan, the Petitioner, a devout follower of Ahinsaism.
b. The Sovereign Republic of Indica, an independent country located in the South
Asian sub-continent, the Respondent.
2. The Religion of Ahinsaism & the Practice of Sanatana

a. Indica is a religiously and culturally diverse country with strongly centered
Fundamental Rights and principles of secularism.
b. Ahinsaism, a religion focusing predominantly on meditation, nature conservation,
and such other practices, developed from the popular Sufi Movement, dating back
to the 14th Century.
c. The followers of Ahinsaism believe that adherence to these practices guarantees
proximity to God Almighty.
d. The Book of Ahinsa is the most important religious text and the foundation for the
religion of Ahinsaism.
e. Per the tenets of Ahinsaism, Sanatana is an essential practice, whereby, the
followers, upon attaining the age of 50 years decide to renounce worldly
pleasures, including the consumption of food. Thus, the followers end their lives
to attain moksha or salvation.
3. The Incident Giving Rise to the Instant Writ Petition

a. Mr. Sureshkishan is an employee at a Multi-National Company and is a devout
follower of Ahinsaism, who indulges in religious practices in his spare time and
promotes ecologically sustainable practices at his workplace.
b. Mr. Sureshkishan expressed his discontent & disapproval through complaints
made to the management concerning the environmental destruction being the
result of the company’s practices.
c. The long and busy hours at the MNC affected the mental and psychological well-
being of Mr.Sureshkishan, following which he approached a psychiatrist.
d. He was diagnosed with early signs of depression and was recommended therapy
along with indulging in practices that can help with the overstress.
e. Due to his inability to focus on his religion and stressful work environment, he
decided to undertake the practice of Sanatana, as he believed it would guarantee
proximity to God.
f. Despite voices of concern from family and friends, Mr. Sureshkishan persisted the
fast, following which, a complaint was made against him under S. 309 of the
Indian Penal Code and Mr. Sureshkishan was arrested.
4. Current Status
a. Following the arrest, Mr. Sureshkishan’s mental state deteriorated even further
and he went into a state of depression.
b. Thereafter, Mr. Sureshkishan approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indica
and filed a Writ Petition by virtue of Article 32, contending that his religious
rights as guaranteed under Article 25 were violated.
c. He contended that Sanatana is an essential legal practice and is thereby protected
under the constitution.
d. Further, he also iterated that Sanatana was a passive form of death, which he was
undertaking due to his severe and grave psychological state.
e. He contended that, since life goes beyond mere animal existence, he had a right to
end his life owing to the deteriorating quality of his life, which is protected under
Article 21.
f. Mr. Sureshkishan affirmed that his religion was in consonance with the
constitutional mandate and fundamental duty of preserving the environment and
having compassion for living creatures under Article 51-A(g).
g. Thus, the matter is now listed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indica for
arguments on the merits of the case.
PETITIONER
JURISDICTION
The Petitioner humbly submits before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indica, the Writ Petition
filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of Indica, 1950, which provides for the right to
move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights and empowers the
Supreme Court to issue directions, orders, or writs.
Thus, the Petitioner deems it fit to invoke the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
Indica.
The present Writ Petition sets forth facts, contentions, and arguments in the present case.
PRAYER
Wherefore, in the light of issues raised, arguments advanced, and authorities cited, may this
Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indica be pleased to:
1. UPHOLD the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner under Article 32 of the Constitution
of Indica as there has been a grave infringement of his Fundamental Rights as
maintainable.
2. DECLARE that Sanatana is an essential legal practice protected by the Constitution
and that Sanatana is not tantamount to suicide per the provisions of the Penal Code.
3. DECLARE that life is beyond mere animal existence, therefore, Right to Life
enshrined under Article 21 incorporates Right to Die and that religious practices can
be validated based on their consonance with Article 51-A(g).
AND/OR
Pass any other order that the Hon’ble Supreme Court deems fit in the interest of Justice,
Equity, and Good Conscience with appropriate costs.
And for this, the Petitioner as in duty bound, shall humbly pray.
COUNSELS FOR THE PETITIONER

RESPONDENT
JURISDICTION
The Respondent humbly submits before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indica in response to
the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioners under Article 32 of the Constitution of Indica, 1950.
However, the Respondent seeks the permission of this Hon’ble Court to contend the
maintainability of this Writ Petition.
The present Writ Petition sets forth facts, contentions, and arguments in the present case.
PRAYER
Wherefore, in the light of issues raised, arguments advanced, and authorities cited, may this
Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indica be pleased to:
1. DISMISS the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner under Article 32 of the Constitution
of Indica due to non-infringement of Fundamental Rights, non-adherence to
established procedure before invoking the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court, thereby
rendering the Writ not maintainable in law.
2. DECLARE that Sanatana is NOT essential legal practice protected by the
Constitution and that Sanatana is tantamount to suicide per the provisions of the Penal
Code.
3. DECLARE that Right to Life enshrined under Article 21 DOES NOT incorporate
Right to Die and that religious practices can NOT be validated merely based on their
consonance with Article 51-A(g).
AND/OR
Pass any other order that the Hon’ble Supreme Court deems fit in the interest of Justice,
Equity, and Good Conscience with appropriate costs.
And for this, the Respondent as in duty bound, shall humbly pray.
COUNSELS FOR THE RESPONDENT

Facts 1. Parties To The Case

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Facts 1. Parties To The Case

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Facts 1. Parties To The Case

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FACTS

1. Parties to the Case

2. The Religion of Ahinsaism & the Practice of Sanatana

3. The Incident Giving Rise to the Instant Writ Petition

COUNSELS FOR THE PETITIONER

COUNSELS FOR THE RESPONDENT

You might also like