Advocate Suhrith Parthasarathy criticised the judgement of the High Court and wrote, ""Sallekhana" is not an exercise in trying to achieve an unnatural death, but is rather a practice intrinsic to a person's ethical choice to live with dignity until death." He also pointed out that the Supreme Court in the "Gian Kaur" case explicitly recognises the right to live with human dignity within the ambit of right to life. He further cited that the Supreme Court wrote in the said case, "right to life may include the right of a dying man to also die with dignity when his life is ebbing out. But the right to die with dignity at the end of life is not to be confused or equated with the right to die an unnatural death curtailing the natural span of life."