Back
Allows Death Anniversary Rites of Prime Accused in Armstrong Murder Case
"Even the blackest rogue's family has the right to follow
,"
the court held, granting conditional permission for the first death anniversary rites of the prime accused in the BSP leader's murder.
The on Thursday quashed a police order denying permission for the first death anniversary observance of P. Nagendran, the prime accused in the 2024 murder of (BSP) state president K. Armstrong. Justice V. Lakshminarayanan allowed the widow Visalatchi to conduct the customary rites at a specified location with strict conditions, emphasizing that the family of even the most notorious accused cannot be denied their right to perform religious and .
A Death Anniversary Delayed by Custody
Nagendran died in judicial custody on , while facing charges in the sensational murder case. His son Ashwathaman was also an accused and remained in custody, preventing the family from performing the customary funeral rites at the time. Acting on advice from relatives, Visalatchi planned a first death anniversary gathering on , at their Vyasarpadi residence, including traditional elements like offering food (annadhanam), singing threnodies (oppari), and beating drums (parai).
When she sought police protection fearing obstruction, the Inspector of Police rejected her request on , citing inputs about potential law and order issues given the high-profile nature of the murder case. The police noted that Nagendran was the prime accused in the killing of a leading political personality and that 15 accused in the case had round-the-clock police protection to prevent retaliation.
From 300 to 60: A Compromise for Peace
Appearing before the court, Visalatchi's counsel
significantly scaled down the request. The petitioner agreed to limit attendees from the originally planned 300 to just 60 persons, confine the event to three hours from 6 PM to 9 PM, and restrict activities to only the
mentioned in the petition.
"There will be no political messaging, erecting of banners or playing of provocative songs,"
the counsel assured.
The State Public Prosecutor , however, maintained that intelligence inputs indicated a real possibility of untoward incidents. He suggested the observance could be held within the petitioner's house, but the court noted the community's customs required a more open space for certain rituals.
"Rationality Cannot Be Attached to Beliefs"
Justice Lakshminarayanan delivered a powerful observation that forms the heart of the judgment.
"This court is of the view that even if the deceased is one of the blackest rogues of the 21st century, his family is entitled to follow the
that they have to do in line with their beliefs. The accused is dead but his family members are alive. The petitioner fears that, unless the funeral observances are performed, the family will be inviting dire consequences from the fore-fathers. Rationality cannot be attached to beliefs."
Acknowledging the police's genuine concerns, the judge expressed confidence in the
's capacity to maintain order.
"The
are robust and resourceful enough to ensure that within three hours, nothing untoward will take place,"
he remarked.
Seven Strict Conditions for the Observance
The court quashed the and directed that the observance be held on , at Door No. 28, 1st Street, Malligaipoo Colony, Chennai, between 6 PM and 9 PM. The conditions include:
- Submitting the list of attendees to the police by 10 AM on the day of the event
- Limiting attendance to 60 persons
- Complying with police requests to exclude individuals who may create law and order issues
- No consumption or distribution of liquor
- No banners, political messaging, or provocative songs
- Restricting activities to only the mentioned in the petition
The court warned that any violation would allow the police to immediately terminate the event.
A Balance Between Rights and Order
The judgment sets an important precedent on the limits of police discretion in denying . While the court fully acknowledged the seriousness of the underlying murder case and the potential for retaliation, it held that blanket denial of to perform religious customs cannot be justified solely on apprehension. Instead, the court demonstrated how —limiting numbers, timing, and content—can balance the family's rights with concerns.
The order was passed on , a day before the scheduled observance, reflecting the urgency with which the court treated the matter.
