DJJS appeal on December 1 order

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 ordered the authorities to carry out the last rites of sect dead Ashutosh within 15 days.

The DJJS has argued that the it was not pleaded before the court whether Ashutosh was dead or not and the court had gone beyond the scope of pleadings and passed orders which did not arise in case.

The DJJS has argued high court erred in the concluding that Ashutosh had no life and deserved to be declared dead. Further stating that none of the parties had sought declaration about the same.

“The lord Jesus Christ was crucified and he died and still resurrected after three days. The Adiguru Shankaracharya left his human abode to enter the body of the dead King and led life of a king for six months and his disciples preserved the body...,” the DJJS has submitted in the petition further arguing Samadhi was in the realm of spirituality and instruments were not capable of determining Samadhi.

They had further argued that there was no evidence as to how due to DJJS keeping the body in freezer, was giving rise to disruption and public order and had argued that government did not produce any evidence that keeping body in freezers was leading to breach of public order.

They had also argued that if the decision was to be taken whether Ashutosh was dead or alive, they should have been informed in advance and these issues were not framed before the order.

They have also challenged the order that disposal of bodies was assigned to government when it was not argued during the course of case as to who would have preferential right.

They have also argued that there was no law for cremation of dead body and judicial discretion should not have been exercised by the court. Another ground is that court directed to carry out orders within fifteen days but the limitation of filing appeal in the said order was 30 days.