ORDER W.P. (C) Nos. 1213/88, 767/89, 924/88, 713/90 & T.C. (C) No. 166/1988
1. The second petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 1213 of 1988 is stated to have died. His name is deleted from the array of parties.
2. Learned Counsel for the writ petitioners crave leave to withdraw the writ petitions. They state that the writ petitioners will move applications before the Appropriate Authority to satisfy it that no breach of the Commission of Sati (Prevention) Act, 1987 takes place by any act of the petitioners or within their temples and that if orders are passed thereon that are adverse to the petitioners, they will be challenged.
3. The writ petitions are dismissed as withdrawn.
W.P. (C) Nos. 943/89 & 629/92:
4. The petitioners were not represented when the writ petitions were first called out. They are not represented even now, on second call. The writ petitions are dismissed.
W.P. (C) No. 700/88:
5. The sole petitioner is stated to have died. The writ petition does not survive for consideration and is disposed of accordingly.
W.P. (C) Nos. 913/88 and 959/88:
6. On the application of learned Counsel for the petitioners, the writ petitions and transferred case are dismissed as withdraw. Learned Counsel for the petitioners state that the petitioners will take such steps as are available to them to see that the Commission of Sati (Prevention) Act, 1987 is enforced.
W.P. (C) No. 699/88. SLP (C) No. 1366/88, W.P. Cril Nos. 218-219/89 and W.P. (C) No. 436/89:
7. We find no merit in the petitions.
8. 'Sati' is defined in Section 2(c) of the Commission of Sati (Prevention) Act, 1987 as meaning the act of burning or burying alive of a widow along with the body of her deceased husband or any other relative. The glorification that the Act prescribes is the glorification of such Sati. Even According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the act of burning or burying alive of a widow with the body of her deceased husband or other relative is a heinous act and must be prescribed. Therefore, the banning of 'Sati', as defined in the Act and the glorification thereof is a legitimate objective; if 'Sau" has any other meaning that 'Sau" is not within the scope of the Act.
9. The other objection is to Section 22(2) of the Act and the submission is that by reason thereof those who have been discharged by the High Courts will have proceedings revived against them. That appears to be a misreading of the Act. Only pending proceedings will continue to be dealt with under the Act.
10. The writ petitions and special leave petition are dismissed.
Crl A. Nos. 671-678/87;
11. Writ petition (C) No. 699 of 1988 was filed by the respondents herein by reason of the order dated 18th December, 1987. That writ petition having been dismissed, it is not necessary that these criminal appeals should be heard by a Constitution Bench. They shall be placed for hearing and final disposal before an appropriate Bench of two learned Judges.
W.P. (C)No. 1324/87 and W.P. (Crl.) Nos. 778-803/87:
12. Learned Counsel for the petitioners state that the grievances raised in these writ petitions have been met by the Commission of Sati (Prevention) Act, 1987. The writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed as having become infructuous.