Back
Slams ' ' in Custodial Death Case, Urges Dignified Burial Under Article 21
In a pointed rebuke, the
dismissed a
filed over the alleged custodial death of 26-year-old Scheduled Caste youth Akash from Manamadurai in Sivagangai District. Justices N. Sathish Kumar and M. Jothiraman branded the petition
"nothing but a
,"
filed for "extraneous reasons," while expressing deep anguish over the deceased's body being withheld for protests, denying the family their fundamental right to last rites.
The bench, in its order dated (W.P.(MD) No. 8029 of 2026, C. Selvakumar v. & Ors. , 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 134), emphasized that the ongoing investigation into the death—allegedly due to police torture while in judicial custody—is already under judicial supervision, making further intervention unwarranted.
From Village Tragedy to Courtroom Clash
The saga began with Akash's death in Krishnarayapuram Village, Sivagangai District, prompting outrage over suspected custodial violence. A prior writ petition by the deceased's father, A. Rajeshkannan ( ), filed as early as , led to FIR registration under the , and transfer of the probe to Tamil Nadu's . A judicial magistrate conducted an inquest under , and a Deputy Superintendent of Police is monitoring progress.
Enter C. Selvakumar, President of , who emailed a representation on , at 11:27 p.m., demanding arrests, body handover, police transfers in Sivagangai for caste bias, and deployment of external officers for fair elections. He filed the PIL the next day, roping in the , , , and others as respondents.
Petitioner's Push: Arrests, Transfers, and Electoral Purity
Selvakumar argued the probe was "sluggish," with no arrests despite grave SC/ST Act violations, leaving the family unable to perform last rites—a breach of Article 21 rights. Tensions were boiling in the locality, he claimed, with caste-biased police undermining free elections. He sought a for immediate arrests, dignified body handover with protection, and wholesale police transfers.
State's Stand: Probe on Track, No Room for Duplicity
Respondents countered that the single judge was actively monitoring the matter, with SC/ST provisions in the FIR and investigation proceeding "in the right direction." They highlighted the petition's suspicious timing—filed overnight after the email—and ongoing protests preventing burial, not state action. Transfers, they noted, fall under the 's purview.
Court's Sharp Dissection: No Merits, Just Mischief
The bench pierced the PIL's veil, noting its hasty filing amid a supervised probe. No precedents were directly cited, but the court drew on Article 21's expansive scope, equating decent burial to life's dignity. It distinguished state responsibility from family/protester actions blocking rites, refusing to entertain parallel reliefs like arrests or transfers, which encroached on executive and electoral domains.
The ruling underscores judicial caution against PIL misuse, especially in monitored cases, while reinforcing victims' families' autonomy in cultural practices.
Key Observations
"We express our anguish that the dead body is being used as a means of protest for days together. Providing a decent burial is also part of the fundamental right under."
"The present writ petition is nothing but aand is devoid of merits."
"In such circumstances, it is not the State or its officials who are preventing the conduct of the last rites. It is for the family members and other concerned persons to proceed with the same."
"Insofar as the transfer of officials is concerned, it is within the domain of theto take appropriate decisions in accordance with law."
Dismissal with a Directive: Probe Continues, Protests Must End
The court dismissed the PIL without costs, leaving the single judge's oversight intact. Practically, it signals families to prioritize last rites over prolonged protests, potentially deterring opportunistic PILs in sensitive cases like custodial deaths. For future litigants, it warns against "extraneous" filings that duplicate judicial monitoring, preserving court bandwidth for genuine grievances while upholding Article 21's sanctity in death as in life.
