1. -XXX XXX XXXThat which is capable of sustaining the society and of engendering upliftment of humanity after establishing ethological and justice system is verifly 'Dharma

       XXX XXX XXX

2. 'Dharma' provides them security who adopt it and devastates them who impair it.

3. In the consolidated judgment of the writ petitions and petitions of habeas corpus, we made a first most reference to the above definition of Dharma', because the main controversy that upsuged along with momentous disputes on certain other Constitutional and legal points in these petitions, almost all the week through, centres round and is in the form of polmics on the interpretation of diverse definitions of 'Dharma' and 'Adliarama'. Prom the above definition it is manifest that whatever means, efforts or thought ways flourished in a particular age for an all oriented advance of humanity after establishing justice system in the society, were termed Dharma' in the nation. The philosoply capable of upholding the society was termed Dharma' In absence of 'Dharma' cautions have been given by the God fathers from time to time in age after age as to the destruction of the society,

4. In this specific controversy, the significant points that sprang forth, primarily arc whether in the Constitutional Republic of India, or in any part or Article of the Constitution which we Indians gave to ourselves, any religious, original fundamental right exists to commit the so called 'Sati' in the form of widow-burning?

5. It would be relevant as also necessary to mention that the petitioners are not at one on this issue. While other petitioners except Shri Yadunath Singh, having christened the widow - burning as 'Sati' called it the very momentous religious absolute right, which according to them, is uninterferable by the Legislature, for it is their religious right which according to their argument, has keen protected in Article 25 of the Constitution. Contrarily in the petition of Shri Yadunath Singh and in the supporting arguments advanced, his counsel Shri Surana has tried to condemn it not only as barbarity, malaftde anti-humanity, atrocity on the female society, contrary to the Constitutional spirit, but in defiance of 'Dharma' and society. Smt. Aruna Asaf Ali also has opposed the 'Sati' custom. Obviously, there is paradox in the arguments made by the petitioners on this issue.

6. The non-petitioners, amongst whom. the State of Rajasthan, the Chief Minister of Rajasthan, as well as the Speaker of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly, figure primarily as opposite pantie., have refuted it and argued that the process of widow-burning or of burning or getting burnt with the cadaver of the husband is irreligious, barbaric, a blot on humanity and repugnant to the Hindu scriptures.

7. In these writ petitions, a challenge has been made to the Constitutionality of the Rajasthan Sati (Prevention) Ordinance, 1987. The prayer is for striking down the same for its bring contrary to the Constitution and for declaration to that effect. Along with these petitions are two more petitions of habeas corpus by Shri Onkar Singh and by others who are detenus in the jail under the Ordinance, with the prayer that taking them detenue is anti-constitutional. With that Shri Rajendra Singh Rathore, Bhagirath Singh, Ramsingh Manohar have lodged five petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with prayer of forthwith release.

8. Arguments on all these petitions were heard conjointly in one, at the joint prayer of the petitioners and their learned counsel. Whereas the Constitutional issues to be determined are intimately inter-connected or rather inseparable hence the same are being disposed of by one conslidated judgment.

9. At village Deorala in District Sikar of Rajasthan and situate 60 Kms. away from Jaipur the capital of Rajasthan, there came to pass a very fateful event or misevent, which aroused a great controversy which transgressed the limits not only of Sikar district, but