1. Dispute between relatives regarding the repatriation and burial site of a deceased person whose mortal remains are held in a foreign forensic laboratory. (Para 1 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 67927
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V. Kunhikrishnan, J
Mary Victoria – Appellant
Versus
Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 35189 OF 2025
Important Points
The right to a dignified burial is a facet of the right to dignity and fair treatment under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, applying not only to living persons but also to their bodies after death.
Subject
Civil - Writ Petition
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Constitution of India - Article 21 - Right to dignity and fair treatment - Right to a decent burial - The right to dignity under Article 21 is not only available to a living man but also to his body after his death (Para 9) - A dead body deserves respect and dignity, and disputes between relatives should not be a reason to deny a decent burial (Para 10).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner (niece of the deceased) filed a writ petition seeking the repatriation of the mortal remains of Mr. Robert Francis Sahayan from a forensic laboratory in Ajman, UAE, where the body had remained for 1.5 years. A dispute arose between the petitioner and the 4th respondent (nephew) regarding the location of the burial, with the petitioner wanting repatriation to India and the 4th respondent wanting the rites performed in the UAE.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the disagreement between legal heirs cannot be an indefinite impediment to a dignified burial. It observed that the duty of the state is to ensure a decent burial when relatives fail to agree. The Court directed the repatriation of the body and provided specific instructions for its burial in Kollam, Kerala.
Issues: Whether the right to a dignified burial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India overrides the disputes between legal heirs regarding the place of burial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the right to dignity under Article 21 extends to a person's body after death. Consequently, the court must ensure a lawful and dignified burial as a responsibility, treating the matter not as a contest between parties but as a fundamental right to respect for the deceased.
Result: Directions issued for repatriation and burial.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner (niece of the deceased) filed a writ petition seeking the repatriation of the mortal remains of Mr. Robert Francis Sahayan from a forensic laboratory in Ajman, UAE, where the body had remained for 1.5 years. A dispute arose between the petitioner and the 4th respondent (nephew) regarding the location of the burial, with the petitioner wanting repatriation to India and the 4th respondent wanting the rites performed in the UAE.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the disagreement between legal heirs cannot be an indefinite impediment to a dignified burial. It observed that the duty of the state is to ensure a decent burial when relatives fail to agree. The Court directed the repatriation of the body and provided specific instructions for its burial in Kollam, Kerala.
Issues: Whether the right to a dignified burial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India overrides the disputes between legal heirs regarding the place of burial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the right to dignity under Article 21 extends to a person's body after death. Consequently, the court must ensure a lawful and dignified burial as a responsibility, treating the matter not as a contest between parties but as a fundamental right to respect for the deceased.
Result: Directions issued for repatriation and burial.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Dhanesh V. Madhavan, Muhammed Shadi ShabeeB P.S., Devika K.R.
For the Respondents: O.M. Shalina, Jawahar Jose, Gokul R. Nair, S. Sivachalam
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Dhanesh V. Madhavan, Muhammed Shadi ShabeeB P.S., Devika K.R.
For the Respondents: O.M. Shalina, Jawahar Jose, Gokul R. Nair, S. Sivachalam
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner and the additional respondent asserted conflicting claims over the authority to determine funeral rites and the burial location for the deceased. (Para 5 , 6 )
3. The court emphasized that the right to a decent burial is inherent in the fundamental right to life and dignity under Article 21, transcending personal or property disputes. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 )
4. The state and courts have a positive obligation to ensure the dignified disposal of human remains, regardless of internal familial disputes or claims over inheritances. (Para 10 , 11 )
5. The court directed the authorities to facilitate the immediate repatriation of the remains and mandated local police and medical officers to oversee a peaceful burial. (Para 12 , 13 )
6. Does the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution extend to the treatment of a dead body?
Yes, the right to dignity and fair treatment under Article 21 of the Constitution of India extends beyond a living person to their mortal remains, mandating a decent and respectful burial. (Para 9 )
7. Should a court wait for familial consensus to resolve the burial of a deceased person?
No, the court must prioritize the necessity of a timely, decent, and dignified burial over individual disagreements or property disputes between relatives. (Para 10 , 11 )
8. What measures can the court initiate to ensure a dignified burial in the event of an intra-familial conflict?
The court may suo motu implead police and medical authorities to provide protection, manage the preservation of the body, and ensure the burial proceeds according to ritual without obstruction. (Para 12 , 13 )
ORDER
The dead body of Mr Robert Francis Sahayan has been waiting for a decent burial since 26.03.2025 in a Forensic Laboratory situated in Ajman, United Arab Emirates (UAE). This Court passed an interim order on 22.10.2026, directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to do the needful to repatriate the dead body of Mr Robert Francis Sahayan from the Forensic Laboratory, Ajman, where the dead body is now kept, and the writ petition was posted to 26.11.2026.
2. But, this Court felt that some additional directions are necessary in this case and hence this writ petition was again posted today.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. I also heard the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, the learned Standing Counsel for NORKA ROOTS, and the learned counsel for the additional 4th respondent.
4. Mr Robert Francis Sahayan, aged 71 years, son of Francis John Sahayan, committed suicide on 26.03.2025, while he was at U.A.E. The mortal remains of late Mr Robert Francis Sahayan is now kept in the forensic laboratory at MSK Sheikh Khalifa Hospital, Ajman, U.A.E. Ext.P1 is the death notification issued by the Emirates Health Service, and Ext.P2 is a certificate, which shows that the petitioner is the daughter of the elder sister of the deceased. Admittedly, Mr Robert Francis Sahayan was not married.
5. The petitioner contacted the Indian Consulate in Dubai to repatriate the mortal remains of late Mr Robert Francis Sahayan to Kerala for conducting his funeral rites in accordance with religious ceremony and for being laid to rest at their family tomb at St. Andrew’s Church, Sasthamcotta, Kollam. It seems that the Indian Consulate in Dubai received another petition and an authorization letter from the Addl. 4th respondent, stating that he is the only nearest blood relative of Mr Robert Francis Sahayan and is entitled to receive all the deceased's belongings. He also requested the Consulate to facilitate the performance of the deceased's funeral rites in U.A.E. itself. Since two relatives of the deceased want to perform the funeral rites differently, NORKA was requested to verify both relatives' claims. The petitioner submitted an application before the NORKA to repatriate the mortal remains of late Mr Robert Francis Sahayan. There was some confusion about the format of the certificate, the petitioner submitted, as evident from Ext.P2. Since there are two conflicting views from the relatives about the place of burial, the dead body is kept in the U.A.E.
6. A statement is filed by respondents 1 and 2, in which it is stated that there are contradictory demands made by the nephew and niece of the deceased and therefore they are not in a position to do the needful as far as the dead body is concerned.
7. When this writ petition came up for consideration on 22.10.2026, this Court passed the following order:
“'It is a sad story'. The mortal of Late Mr. Robert Francis Sahayan is kept at Forensic Laboratory, Ajman. He died on 26.03.2025, at the age 71 years. The petitioner is the niece of the deceased and the 4th respondent is the nephew. The petitioner, 4th respondent and others are the legal heirs of deceased, Robert Francis Sahayan. Because of the dispute between the petitioner and the 4th respondent, the dead body of Robert Francis Sahayan, is kept at Forensic Laboratory, Ajman. Now, the counsel for the petitioner and the 4th respondent submitted that they have no objection in repatriating the mortal to India.
Therefore, the 1st and 2nd respondents are directed to do the needful to repatriate the dead body of Robert Francis Sahayan, forthwith. The expense for the repatriation of the dead body will be taken by the petitioner for the time being. The point of contact also will be the petitioner.
Post on 26.11.2026.”
8. Now it is submitted that the first and second respondents have already taken steps to repatriate the dead body of Mr Robert Francis Sahayan based on the above order. In the above order, this Cou
