Jainacharya Yugbhushansuri: Conferring Rights In Essence Decriminalises Colonization

Mumbai, 1st November 2025: "Certain rights are inherent to humans, yet astonishingly, the Indian Constitution claims to confer those very rights, negating their inherency and pre-existence. Conferring rights, in essence, decriminalizes colonisation and all heinous crimes committed by the British in India,” said His Holiness, Spiritual Sovereign Jainacharya Yugbhushansuri, the 79th successor of Tirthankar Shri Mahavir, at the Legal Precursor 2.0 event organised by Jyot.

Referring to the I.R. Coelho case, His Holiness posed a fundamental question: “Are fundamental rights inherent to human existence, or are they conferred by the State?”

The two-day event concluded successfully, gathering eminent jurists, constitutional law experts, and legal practitioners from across India at Police Ground, Ghatkopar. The event was held under the aegis of His Holiness. The gathering also witnessed the participation of students from reputed law colleges, alongside lawyers and advocates.

The forum revisited critical constitutional questions surrounding the nature of citizens’ rights, the limits of State power, and the Basic Structure Doctrine. Offering a unique perspective on the nature of rights, N. Venkataraman, Additional Solicitor General of India, remarked, “We are mistakenly identifying human rights as akin to individual rights. This is the first mistake, and it is my humble submission that courts across the world have started to make it. It directly interferes with the fabric of Indian society in three ways; it affects the institution of marriage, the institution of family, and therefore, society at large.”

Concluding the session on a note of optimism, His Holiness reflected, “This Sankraman Kaal, a period of transition, offers India an opportunity to revisit and re-envision its constitutional jurisprudence through the lens of timeless principles embedded in the Indian Rajniti.”

The session was graced by Justice G.R. Swaminathan (Madras High Court), Dama Seshadri Naidu (Former Judge, High Court & Senior Advocate), N. Venkataraman (Additional Solicitor General of India), Birendra Saraf (Advocate General of Maharashtra), Arvind Kamath (Additional Solicitor General of India), Balbir Singh (Former Additional Solicitor General of India), P.K. Malhotra (Former Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice), Senior Advocate Percival Billimoria, Advocate and Curator of the Bombay High Court Museum Rajan Jayakar, and Advocate Indrajit Sinha.

The event culminated with the signing of the Mohvijay Declaration by the panellists, affirming the role of ancient Indian scriptures in enriching our understanding of the codification of constitutional law. The declaration proposed integrating such insights into India’s educational framework to foster a deeper appreciation of the nation’s indigenous legal and constitutional heritage.

On the sidelines of the event, a research-based exhibition on contemporary legal and political issues was showcased. Conceived under the visionary inspiration of Mohjitvijayji, the 78th successor of Tirthankar Shri Mahavir, the exhibition received an overwhelming response and deeply resonated with scholars, jurists, and attendees alike.

Sharing his impressions of the exhibition, Birendra Saraf, Advocate General of Maharashtra, said, “I was surprised to see the depth of study behind this exhibition. I was particularly interested in how it relates our constitutional provisions to ancient Indian scriptures and values that have been integral to our cultural and social ethos.”

An announcement was also made for the upcoming flagship event, “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam Ki Oar 4.0” Conclave, scheduled to take place from January 16th to 22nd, 2026, in Mumbai. The initiative is being organised in collaboration with several leading law institutions, including Government Law College, Maharashtra National Law University, and Jitendra Chauhan College of Law, among others. Nalanda University, Vivekananda International Foundation, and India Foundation are also partners in this endeavour.

During the event, His Holiness Jainacharya Yugbhushansuri further observed, “Despite seventy-five years of the Constitution, over 125 amendments, and numerous landmark judicial pronouncements, constitutional conundrums still persist. This is a moment of introspection for legislators, jurists, and policymakers; to ask why these fundamental ambiguities endure.”

Speaking on the insertion of Article 31B in the Constitution by the then unelected Parliament, His Holiness said, “Has Article 31B ever been tested on the touchstone of the Basic Structure Doctrine? Astonishingly, Article 31B is causing the gravest injustice ever faced by any community in the world. In regard to the Jains, this draconian Article continues to stand, protecting the acquisition of the topmost place of worship - Parasnath Hills.”

He further questioned whether one could ever imagine the acquisition of a place of worship whose sanctity, if not greater, is at least akin to that of Ayodhya for Hindus, Bodhgaya for Buddhists, the Golden Temple for Sikhs, Mecca for Muslims, and the Vatican for Catholics.

Justice G.R. Swaminathan of the Madras High Court described the exhibition as wonderful, observing that one panel demonstrated how Shukra Neeti and other Neetis contained concepts such as equality and freedom of speech; ideas often considered modern but deeply rooted in India’s ancient texts.

Senior Advocate Percival Billimoria posed an important question: “Can we have jurists with their own belief systems decide what constitutes an essential part of religion? Because those beliefs inevitably reflect in judgments.”

Balbir Singh, Former Additional Solicitor General of India, said, “Is Kesavananda Bharati a successful formula to provide limitations to the Constitution? Let’s try and set the limits, but even if we bring together the best drafters, I don’t think we’ll find two people who agree on the same limitations in this country, especially in Parliament. We might need Kesavananda Bharati 2.0.”

Arvind Kamath, Additional Solicitor General of India, added that the right to life existed even before the Constitution came into being. “It is a human right; it existed. It is not the Constitution that gave it,” he noted.

P.K. Malhotra, Former Secretary of the Ministry of Law and Justice, elaborated, “What is the Basic Structure? Has Kesavananda Bharati or Minerva Mills defined it? The Court itself has said that as and when a question arises, it will examine whether a law destroys the Basic Structure of the Constitution. The contours of the Basic Structure are not exhaustively defined; they are determined by the courts on a case-to-case basis.”