‘HC erred in concluding that Ashutosh has no life’
Invoking the Vedas, Koran and the Bible, the Divya Jyoti Jagriti Sansthan (DJJS), in its appeal challenging the December 1 order of the Punjab and Haryana high court, has argued that courts are not competent to distinguish between a ‘naturally dead body’ and a body in samadhi (deep meditation).chandigarh Updated: Dec 10, 2014 14:58 IST
Invoking the Vedas, Koran and the Bible, the Divya Jyoti Jagriti Sansthan (DJJS), in its appeal challenging the December 1 order of the Punjab and Haryana high court, has argued that courts are not competent to distinguish between a ‘naturally dead body’ and a body in samadhi (deep meditation).
In its appeal filed before the registry of the high court, the DJJS has argued that if parameters of the judgment (passed on December 1) were to be applied to the cases of all religions, none would be able to stand the test set by the court.
The high court had on December 1 declared sect head Ashutosh dead and ordered the authorities to carry out his last rites within 15 days.
The DJJS has argued that it was not pleaded before the court whether Ashutosh was dead or not and the court had gone beyond the scope of the pleadings.
The dera argued that the HC had erred in concluding that Ashutosh had ‘no life’ and deserved to be declared dead, stating that no party had sought declaration about the same.
“The lord Jesus Christ was crucified and he died. He was resurrected after three days. Adiguru Shankaracharya left his human abode to enter the body of the dead king and led the life of a king for six months and his disciples preserved the body...,” the DJJS submitted in the petition, arguing that samadhi is in the realm of spirituality and instruments are not capable of determining this condition.
The dera further argued that the state government had failed to produce any evidence to prove that keeping the body in the freezer was leading to breach of public order. It also challenged the order that the disposal of bodies had been assigned to the government when it was not argued during the course of the case as to who would have preferential right.
The DJJS also argued that there was no law for the cremation of a body and judicial discretion should not have been exercised by the court.