A deceased person has the legal autonomy to express their wish for their body to be used for anatomical purposes after death, and such an unequivocal, genuine written expression supersedes the preferences of legal heirs for burial.

JUDGMENT PREETA A.K., J.

The appellants who are the petitioners in the Writ Petition are challenging the judgment dated 10/04/2026 of the learned Single Judge whereby challenge against the retention and proposed use of the body of their deceased mother for anatomical purposes, was dismissed. The brief facts leading to the filing of the Writ Appeal is as follows : The appellants and respondents 6 to 8 are the Children of late Mary, wife of John who died on 23/02/2026. The fifth respondent is the son-in-law of the said Mary. The allegation in the Writ Petition was that respondents 5 to 7, without informing the appellants or obtaining their consent, took custody of the dead body of the deceased on the date of death, transported the dead body to Government Medical College Hospital, Kalamassery and represented before the hospital authorities that the body was being donated for medical purposes. Acting upon such representation, the hospital authorities received the body and shifted the same to the mortuary. The appellants who are also the legal heirs, thereupon, approached the statutory authorities and sought for the release of the body to perform the last rites and burial in accordance with their religious customs, as according to them, they had not given consent for donating the body. The appellants inter alia sought for a a writ of mandamus for directing respondents 4 and 5 to forthwith release the dead body of the petitioners’ mother to the petitioners to enable them to conduct last rites and burial in accordance with their religious customs. The contesting respondents 5 to 7 filed a counter affidavit inter alia contending that the appellants and the eighth respondent were not on good terms with the deceased mother and father and that during their lifetime, they were looked after by their eldest daughter Elizabeth and her husband – the fifth respondent herein. It was also contended that on account of the ruckus created by the second appellant and the eighth respondent at the time of the death of their father, the funeral had to be delayed and this had prompted their mother to execute a consent as envisaged under Section 4A of the Kerala Anatomy Act, 1957 to donate her body to the hospital and that the body was handed over to the Medical College, Kalamassery in accordance with the wishes of the deceased. The learned Single Judge after considering the rival contentions held as follows:

“In the instant case, Ext.R5(a), which has not been disputed, is an unequivocal expression in writing of the deceased, during her lifetime in the presence of two of her children, that her body be used for educational purposes in Ernakulam Medical College. Based on the said document, the Principal of the Medical College has accepted the said body as well. Mere desire on the part of the petitioners, who are also the children of the deceased, cannot overcome the explicit expression of intention of the deceased to handover her body after her death to Medical College. Further, there is nothing to doubt the credibility of the expression of the desire of the deceased in Ext.R5(a). In this context, it needs to be mentioned that, curiously, petitioners have not arrayed Smt.Elizabeth, one of the daughters of the deceased, whose name appears in Ext.R5(a) as a party and instead, her husband has been arrayed as the fifth respondent. Having regard to the totality of circumstances mentioned above, the contentions of the petitioners lack merit.”

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. It is contended by the appellants that in so far as the appellants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased, have not consented to handover the body for anatomical uses, they have a right to claim that the deceased should have a burial in accordance with their relig