IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
V.G. ARUN, J.
Rajesh S/o Late Sarojani and Ayyappan – Petitioner
Versus
Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kochi – Respondent
W.P. (C) Nos. 33292, 37339 of 2022
Decided On : 18-03-2024
Burial - Right to Decent Burial - Kerala Panchayat Raj (Burial of Unclaimed Corpses and Carcasses) Rules, 1996 - The court discussed the right to decent burial as a facet of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It also considered the applicability of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Rules and the power of the Sub Divisional Magistrate to order exhumation of the body.
Fact of the Case:
The son buried the dead body of his mother in the ancestral property sold to a third person. The adjacent landowner complained to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, who directed the son to disinter the body within one week, failing which the Panchayat Secretary was to get the body exhumed and buried in accordance with the Kerala Panchayat Raj Rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the right to decent burial is a facet of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It held that the direction to disinter the body and bury it in accordance with the Rules was justified, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances involved.
Issues: The issues involved included the right to decent burial, applicability of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Rules, and the power of the Sub Divisional Magistrate to order exhumation of the body.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the right to decent burial as a facet of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It also considered the applicability of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Rules and the power of the Sub Divisional Magistrate to order exhumation of the body.
Final Decision: W.P. (C) No. 37339 of 2022 is allowed, directing the official respondents to strictly comply with the directions in the order dated 07.10.2022. W.P. (C) No. 33292 of 2022 is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
V.G. ARUN, J.
1. The not so pleasant facts emerging from these writ petitions are as under:
2. Heard Advocate Sherry J. Thomas, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 37339 of 2022, Advocate Imam Grigorios Karat, learned Government Pleader and Advocate T.K. Ajithkumar (Valath), learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayat. The learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 33292 of 2022 was absent on the last few posting dates.
3. Advocate Sherry J. Thomas contended that no person has the right to bury a dead body in another person's property without express consent. It is argued that the buried body is liable to be removed forthwith, since the faith and custom of his client does not permit such burial.
4. Advocate T.K. Ajithkumar contended that the Rules are applicable only in the case of unclaimed corpses, while in the instant case, the dead body was buried by the son himself. Therefore, the Sub Divisional Magistrate could not have directed the Panchayat to get the body exhumed and buried in accordance with the Rules.
5. Learned Government Pleader submitted that in the peculiar facts and circumstances involved, the Sub Divisional Magistrate was justified in passing the order.
6. The constitutional courts of this country have declared the right to decent burial to be a facet of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In Parmanand Katara (Pt.) vs. Union of India, (1995) 3 SCC 248, while declaring paragraph 873 of the Punjab Jail Manual, which required the body of a condemned prisoner to remain suspended for half an hour, to be directory and not mandatory, the Supreme Court held that the right to dignity and fair treatment under Article 21 is not only available to a living man, but also to his body after death. This view was reiterated in Mohammad Latief Magrey vs. State (UT of J&K), 2022 SCC Online SC 1203 also. Therein, the prayer for exhumation made by the relatives of a foreign terrorist, who was shot dead and buried by the authorities, was declined by the Supreme Court, finding that the authorities had buried the body with dignity. For reaching such conclusion, the court was also took guidance from the following words of Justice Cordozo:
Even though the prayer for exhumation was declined, the observation of the Apex Court that even a dead person has the right of treatment to his body with respect and dignity, which he would have deserved had he been alive, assumes relevance.
7. On a philosophical note, death is that beautiful moment when you are finally at peace, relieved of the shadows of yesterday and the uncertainties of tomorrow. That beautiful moment
The right to decent burial is a facet of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the conditions and restrictions for burying a body, as outlined in Rule 7 of the Tamil Nadu Village Panchayats (Provision of Burial and Bur....
(1) Disinterment of body of slain militant for the purpose of religious rituals – After a body has been buried, it is considered to be in custody of law – Disinterment is not a matter of right – Dist....
The court emphasized the need for fair hearing before administrative orders affecting burial rights under specific statutes.
The court affirmed the right to a decent burial under Article 21 of the Constitution, allowing exhumation for religious rites after confirming no health hazards from COVID-19 exist after four years.
A burial site requires a license from the Village Panchayat, and procedural lapses in reclassification of land as a burial ground render such actions invalid.
The court affirmed the right to burial in accordance with religious customs, emphasizing the need for designated burial grounds for minority communities to prevent discrimination.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.