IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the validity of a deceased's request for body donation under the Kerala Anatomy Act, affirming that such requests made in the presence of witnesses are binding despite familial objections.

JUDGMENT :

V.G. Arun, J.

While death draws the curtain on the drama of life, it sometimes unfolds another drama among the living. This writ petition portrays a fight among the children of the deceased as to how the body is to be dealt with. The essential facts are as under:-

M.M. Lawrence, a respected communist leader, breathed his last on 21.09.2024. According to his son, the 5th respondent herein, his father wanted the body to be donated for anatomical purposes. This desire, expressed by the deceased, was reported to the authorised officer under the Kerala Anatomy Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) by respondents 5 and 6, the 6th respondent being one among the two daughters of the deceased. Thereupon, arrangements were made to take the body to the Government Medical College. At that point of time, the other daughter, the petitioner herein, objected. According to the petitioner, even though her father was a Communist, he was not averse to Christianity, the religion to which he was born. He continued to be a member of the St.Francis Xaviers Church, Kathrikadavu, of which the 7th respondent is the Vicar and all functions in the family, be it baptism, marriage or burial, was conducted following the religious customs. Hence, petitioner wanted the body of her father to be buried in the church cemetery, in accordance with Christian rites and rituals. In order to prevent the body being handed over to the Medical College, the petitioner rushed to this Court by filing W.P.(C).No.33350 of 2024. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment, directing the 4th respondent to consider the objection raised by the petitioner before taking a decision on the consent alleged to have been given by the deceased. In compliance of the direction, the 4th respondent heard the parties and passed Ext.P6 order, instructing the remains of late M.M. Lawrence, donated for educational purposes, to be embalmed and preserved till the body is taken for teaching purpose. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court again seeking the following reliefs:-

''a. issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or order or direction directing the 4th respondent to handover the body of deceased father of the petitioner Sri. M.M. Lawrence to the petitioner so as to enable her to bury the body at the 7th respondent's church following Christian faith rites and rituals.

b. Issue a writ of certiorari or such other writ or order or direction quashing Exhibit.P-7 order passed by the 4th respondent

c. Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or order or direction directing the 1st respondent to conduct an enquiry against the 9th and 10th respondent for acting against the provisions of the Act during the hearing sabotaging the statutory hearing directed to be conducted by this Hon'ble Court vide Exhibit.P-3 judgment by verifying the visuals of the CCTV cameras installed at the chamber of the 9th respondent his office and also the verandha and also inspecting the phone calls received by the 9th and 10th respondent before, during and after the hearing held on 25.9.2024 to find out the influence of any external forces, including that of the 8th respondent and take appropriate departmental as well as criminal action against the 9th and 10th respondent.''

2. Heard Adv. R. Krishna Raj for the petitioner, Senior Advocate V.V. Sidharthan, instructed by Adv. D.G. Vipin, for the 5th respondent, Adv. P.M. Benzir for the 6th respondent and Adv. N. Manoj Kumar, the State Attorney, for the Government and its officials.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner assails Ext.P6 order mainly on two grounds; i) the 'expression of request' by the deceased under Section 4A of the Act should be made to the authorised officer and ii) the procedure followed by the 4th respondent, while deciding the petitioner's objection, is patently illegal and vitiated by reason of the officer's bias and favourtism.

4. In furtherance of the first contention, it is submitted that the word