The right to a dignified burial is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the court prioritizes the deceased's wishes and seeks to avoid conflict between the petitioner and the deceased's family.

JUDGMENT :

Though the formal forensic scheme applicable to our Country stipulates little for protecting the rights of the dead, it is ingrained into the collective ethos; and which has found expression in declarations of Courts, the locus classicus being Parmanand Katara v. Union of India & Ors. [1989 (4) SCC 286].

2. This Court certainly has no doubt that the constitutionally protected and guaranteed right of every individual to dignity and fair treatment, especially under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, cannot be construed to cease with death; but continues much beyond, at least until such time as mortal remains are finally dealt with, commanding respect as it requires.

3. As said above, through judicial interventions, these rights have obtained restatements over the time; and it has now become settled on account of declarations through a catena of precedents, and hence virtually having the force of law.

4. Human dignity, no doubt, lies at the core of all international human rights schemes and legislations. Starting from the Geneva Convention of 1949; traveling through the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam; followed by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and the United Nations Inter-Agency Standing Committee's Operational Guidelines on Human Rights and Natural Disasters; concluding with the International Humanitarian Law, the right of an individual to a decent and dignified burial remains inviolable and beyond debate.

5. The preface as afore has become necessary because the petitioner impels a very grave situation, where he says that his “Live-in Partner”, late Manu, had an accidental death on the early morning of 03.02.2024; and that his mortal remains are now maintained by the 5th respondent Hospital in their mortuary. He alleges that the Hospital is demanding an amount of Rs.1,30,000/-, as a condition for release of the mortal remains of late Manu; that, even if he is to find the source for this, he has been told that it will not be released to him, since he cannot be recognised to have any right for such, under any of the legislative or customary laws. He further says that the parents of late Manu and his other family members, have long given upon on him, solely because of the choice of life that he accepted, particularly since he came out openly as being part of LGBTQIA+ community.

6. The petitioner asserts that, therefore, for all intent and practical purposes, he becomes the only surviving person, with any interest over the mortal remains of late Manu; and hence that he is entitled to be given its custody, so that it can then be given the burial that he deserves.

7. Sri. Prashant Padmanabhan -learned counsel, appearing along with Smt. Padma Lakshmi for the petitioner, pointed out that the members of the LGBTQIA+ community are move emotionally sensitive than most of the others; and that the death of their partner visits them with psychological consequences which is difficult of being semantically described. He asserted that his client is going through such an indescribable situation, being in deep distress and in a state of tenebrous despair and agony; and hence that the lack of respect shown to the mortal remains of late Manu, particularly in being refused a decent burial, feels cataclysmic to him, and in any event, is contrary to the public spirit of this nation. He submitted that the 5th respondent -Hospital also cannot retain the mortal remains of late Manu merely, because his client is unable to raise resources; but then added that, through crowd funding and sourcing from others like friends and relatives, he has been able to raise an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, which would be perhaps sufficient to pay off the medical bills. He concluded, pointing out that, even though there is a second prayer in the writ petition -that the Police be directed to take necessary action against the family of late Manu under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code -is not being pressed because, pending this lis, he has