Back
MP High Court Greenlights State's Hearse Helpline, Mandates Mega Publicity Push
In a swift resolution to a , the —benched by Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf — filed by Rashid Noor Khan against the State of Madhya Pradesh . The court acknowledged the state's proactive step of launching a dedicated toll-free helpline for free hearse vans, while issuing a clear directive for widespread publicity to ensure every citizen knows how to access this vital service.
Death's Last Ride: The That Demanded Seamless Access
The petition spotlighted a glaring gap in the , a state scheme deploying 148 hearse vans across districts to provide free transportation for the deceased . Petitioner Rashid Noor Khan argued that despite the vans' availability, the public remained in the dark about booking procedures. He urged the court for a state-level toll-free helpline to handle bookings, coordination, and monitoring, plus integration with emergency networks and aggressive promotion.
This writ, filed in and heard on , underscored broader concerns over dignified last journeys, especially for underprivileged families unable to afford private hearses during emergencies.
Petitioner's Cry vs. State's Revelation
Rashid Noor Khan
, represented by advocates
and
, painted a picture of inaccessible services:
"the general public is not being made aware as to how the services are to be availed."
The demand was holistic—helpline setup, NHM integration, and publicity blitz—to transform the scheme from paper promise to public reality.
The state , through Government Advocate , countered effectively: a dedicated toll-free number 155334 was already operational for hearse bookings. This revelation shifted the narrative, proving compliance without needing new infrastructure.
No precedents were cited, as the matter hinged on factual compliance rather than doctrinal debate.
Court's No-Nonsense Nod to Reality
The bench, per Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva, found the state's submission dispositive. With the helpline in place, further orders on establishment were redundant. Yet, recognizing awareness gaps, the court pivoted to enforcement: publicity via tickers, radio messages, and other methods .
This pragmatic approach aligns with ethos—remedying systemic lapses without reinventing wheels. Reports echoing the judgment, like those emphasizing "dignified transport of deceased," highlight how such directives amplify public welfare schemes.
Key Observations
"Petitioner seeks a direction to the State for establishment and operationalization of a toll-free helpline number booking and coordinating the free Hearse Vans made available under the State Free Hearse Van Service ( )."
"Learned Government Advocate appearing for the State submits that a special dedicated toll-free No.155334 has already been dedicated for the said service of providing Hearse Van Service."
"In view of the fact that respondent/State authority has already complied with the prayer made by the petitioner, no further orders are called for in the petition."
"However, the State is directed to give publicity in respect of the said service by issuing tickers, radio messages and other methods."
A Dial-Away Solution for the Departed
The petition stands
disposed
with the court's order ():
"Petition is
[in] the above terms."
Practically, dial 155334 now promises free hearse access statewide, with mandated promotion ensuring no family faces undue hardship. For future cases, this reinforces that PILs thrive on verified facts—states must not just launch schemes but broadcast them. In Madhya Pradesh, death's final commute just got a public service announcement.
