SAVANT, C. J.

Heard all the learned counsel, Dr. Vincent Panikulangara, for the petitioners, Mr. Prasanth, for the first-respondent-Union of India, and Mr. Jose Thetteyil, for the second respondent-State of Kerala.

2. O.P. No. 11596 of 1998 of filed by Mr. C. A. Thomas Master, who was then 80 years old, for very unusual reliefs. The petitioner says that he is a retired teacher. His wife is aged 72 years old; she is also a retired teacher. The petitioner has a daughter, sonin-law, as also his son and grand-children, who are school going. The petitioner says that his family members are well-settled. He is in a good mental and physical state. He enjoys music and plays harmonica. He led a contented life and believes that all his duties and obligations in his life are successfully fulfilled and has accomplished his mission in life. The petitioner, therefore, states that he has no desire to live any further, and it is high time he quits this world. However, as a law abiding citizen, he does not want to commit suicide, but he wants to voluntarily put an end to his life or donate his bodily organs to facilitate voluntary death.

3. The petitioner has referred to the fact that death is the only certainty in life and hence a person who thinks that he has lived enough, and is contented in life, should have the freedom to choose the time and place of his death, as well as the method. The freedom to choose the method of one's death is a part of the right to life guaranteed by Art. 21 of the Constitution, says the petitioner. He says in the ancient Indian and Chinese civilisations, it was customary to permit voluntary death and arrangements should, therefore, be provided by the respondents to facilitate voluntary death clinics. Petition proceeds to distinguish between a suicide which is committed by a person frustrated in life or unsuccessful in life and the right to voluntarily put an end to one's life by a person like the petitioner, who is successful and happy in life and has achieved his mission in life.

4. The petitioner has then referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1996 SC 1257 : (1996 Cri LJ 1660). The petitioner has also referred to the decisions of some of the High Courts on the question, but his regret is that the said decisions do not consider the distinction between what is commonly understood as suicide and the right of a person to take a decision regarding voluntarily putting an end to one's life which he says is - an inalienable part of the right to life. The petitioner, therefore, contends that not-withstanding the decision of the Apex Court in Gian Kaur's case, the distinction between "suicide" as commonly understood, and the right to voluntarily terminate one's life needs to be considered by this Court. The petitioner then claims to have approached some of the medical institutions under the control of the State Government, including the District Hospital, Thirssur, seeking help to facilitate his voluntary death and for donation of his organs, including heart, kidneys, eyes, etc. However, his request was not taken seriously and he was told that none of the hospitals under the State Government has such facilities to enable the petitioner to voluntarily cause his death, which would not be suicide.

5. Being aggrieved, therefore, by the refusal and inaction on the part of both the respondents, the petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to start "Mahaprasthana Kendra" or Voluntary Death Clinics in each District Hospital so as to facilitate voluntary death and donation of bodily organs as well as their transplantation. There is a further prayer for a direction to the respondents to appoint a commission to study the practice of voluntary death in ancient India and to suggest methods for its practice in the context of environmental changes and technological advancement. The petitioner also prays for a direction to the respondents to se