Suraj Lama Case: Kerala High Court Allows Amendment Alleging State Negligence Led To Death, Seeking Compensation

The Division Bench comprising Dr. Justice A. K Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian allowed the application for amendment of the petition and directed the respondents to file counter affidavits.

The Court had previously sought reports from Immigration and Police on the lacunas in the investigation of the Missing case.

Suraj Lama was deported from Kuwait and sent to Kochi pursuant to official orders. However, despite his visibly vulnerable condition, described as involving possible cognitive and other impairments, he was cleared by all authorities, including immigration and airport security, and allowed to leave the airport without assistance.

The Court had previously expressed concern over the administrative handling of deportees, asking if any protocol was in place. Subsequently, a body was found from Kalamassery, which was confirmed to belong to Lama by a Forensic report.

According to the application, official records and reports submitted by the police reveal that the incident stemmed from systemic aberrations and negligence, particularly the failure of authorities to comply with statutory safeguards under Section 100 of the Mental Healthcare Act, which deals with the duties of police officers in respect of persons with mental illness.

It is further alleged that the police failed to follow mandatory procedures when dealing with a person exhibiting signs of mental distress. Despite having custody of the individual on more than one occasion, the authorities allegedly did not initiate the statutory process required for the protection and treatment of mentally ill persons.

The application also claims that officials at Government Medical College Hospital, Kalamassery failed to provide timely and appropriate medical care after the detainee was brought to the hospital in a government ambulance.

Statements by the nurse accompanying the detainee reportedly indicated that the patient's condition required urgent attention. However, the hospital's casualty department allegedly failed to extend the prompt care and diligence. The petitioner argues that the detainee's death might have been averted had proper medical care been provided at the crucial time.

The post-mortem report does not specify the exact date of death, stating only that death could have occurred within one to two months before the autopsy conducted on December 1, 2025. Based on this, the petitioner contends that the death likely occurred sometime between October 1 and December 1, 2025.

CCTV footage reportedly shows the detainee last seen on the hospital premises on 10.10.2025, before being forcibly escorted out by another individual. The petitioner argues that the death occurred after the detainee was turned away from the hospital.

The application further alleges that the police registered the relevant crime belatedly, which prevented authorities from identifying the detainee earlier as a person already reported missing. The plea states that the individual resurfaced within the jurisdiction of Thrikkakara Police Station, yet officers again failed to initiate mandatory procedures under the Mental Healthcare Act.

"Apart from not recognising him as the missing person referred to in the earlier FIR, they also failed to initiate the mandatory procedures contemplated under the law for the protection and treatment of a person found to be mentally ill and in need of care. Such indifference and callousness on the part of the authorities has ultimately culminated in the tragic loss of a human life." the plea states. 

The petition also points to alleged lapses by immigration authorities, questioning how a person reportedly suffering from mental health issues was permitted to pass through immigration on the basis of an emergency certificate. The petitioner claims that conflicting accounts from airport officials further indicate negligence and a breakdown of coordinated response among authorities.

The application submits that where State authorities fail to discharge their duty to protect life and liberty, constitutional courts may award compensation under writ jurisdiction.

The petitioner has thus sought for compensation from the State for violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. 

Case No: WP (Crl.) No. 1421/2025

Case Title: Santon Lama v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Counsel for Petitioner: A Parvathi Menon

Counsel for Respondent: Harikrishnan S., O.M Shalina (DSGI), V. Ramkumar Nambiar (Amicus Curiae), S Sujin (SC - CIAL)