Person Entitled To 'Posthumous Bodily Integrity': Kerala High Court Upholds Deceased Woman's Body Donation, Rejects Heirs' Objections
The Kerala High Court has upheld a person's "posthumous bodily integrity" which would include their right to donate their body executed during the person's lifetime, noting that the law strives to honour the wishes of the deceased and protects their interests.
In doing so the court upheld a deceased woman's wish to donate her body for anatomical purposes, over subsequent objections raised by family members seeking burial according to religious customs.
A Division Bench comprising Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K. were delivering the judgment in an appeal moved by the woman's children challenging a Single Judge's order while allowed the retention and proposed use of the body of their deceased mother for anatomical purposes. Against this the childern moved an appeal
The appellants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased, contended that they had not consented to handover the body for anatomical uses, they have a right to claim that the deceased should have a burial in accordance with their religious rites.
The bench however said:
"The fact that corpses are legally protected is therefore not determinative of whether only the living are rights holders. The law also strives to honour a deceased's wishes and to protect his interests which is exemplified through the unconditional recognition of “will“ in law. The right of a living person to decide on the fate of her body remains a part of her posthumous bodily integrity. Though commonly human beings desire a decent burial, it is also not uncommon that human beings choose to render their body for anatomical studies as part of their commitment to the society.
That the law strives to honour the wishes of the deceased and to protect her interests is exemplified through the unconditional recognition of “will“ in law. This facet of the right to posthumous bodily integrity can also be seen in legislations like Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994, the Kerala Anatomy Act etc. Section 4A of the latter Act deals with instances where the deadbody of a person who has expressed an unequivocal request during her life-time for using the body after death for conducting anatomical dissection, can be so used subject to the conditions in Section 4A"
The dispute arose after the death of Mary on February 23, 2026. According to the appellants, certain family members took custody of the body and handed it over to the Government Medical College Hospital, Kalamassery, for educational purposes without informing them or obtaining their consent. They subsequently approached authorities seeking release of the body for burial.
However, the contesting respondents relied on a written consent executed by the deceased during her lifetime expressing her wish to donate her body for medical education, a document accepted by the medical college. The Single Judge had earlier rejected the challenge.
The appellants argued that, as legal heirs, they had not consented to the donation and were entitled to receive the body to perform the deceased's last rites and burial in accordance with their religious traditions.
The Court noted that the right claimed by the appellants is a reflection of two competing interests, which is the right to posthumous bodily integrity of the deceased and the right of the family to get a closure of the loss of their near and dear ones.
“The question whose rights a law protects is a question of who is its subject matter rather than its object..” the Court observed.
The court referred to Salmond on Jurisprudence and observed that although legal personality ordinarily ends with death, the law continues to recognise and protect certain interests of the deceased, particularly concerning the treatment of their body.
The court thus observed that a person's decision regarding the fate of their body remains an aspect of their posthumous bodily integrity.
The court thus noted that the deceased had executed a consent letter under Section 4A and that the appellants had not challenged its authenticity. In those circumstances, the donation of the body to the medical college was a lawful act undertaken to honour the deceased's expressed wishes.
The Court thus dismissed the appeals against the judgment of the Single Judge.
Case Title: Greeny Tomy and Ors. v State of Kerala and Ors.
Case No: WA 1090/ 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 307
Counsel for Appellants: Haroon Ashraf, K.T Saju, Mohammad Ishaaq, Amjath T.H
Counsel for Respondents: Unnikrishna Kaimal (Sr. GP)