Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan observed that the Court need consider the relatives' disagreement and that there is a duty to ensure that due respect and a proper burial is given to a deceased.

“the Court must approach this dispute not as a contest between the parties, but as a responsibility of the court to secure a lawful and dignified burial of the dead body… the disagreement of the relatives must not be allowed to become an indefinite impediment to a dignified burial of the dead body,” the Court said.

The Court further remarked that the relatives, society and the State has a duty to ensure decent burial for a citizen:

“If a citizen in our country dies, which is inevitable at some stage of life for everyone, it is the duty of the relatives, society and the state to see that there is a decent burial of his dead body. If relatives fail, society should step in; if society fails, the state should step in. It is the duty of each and every one of us to see that the dead body of a person is buried decently, whether he is a poor man or a wealthy man. There is no 'poor man's dead body' or 'wealthy man's dead body'.

The deceased, an unmarried man, died by suicide while he was in UAE. His niece, the petitioner, sought to bring back the mortal remains to conduct a funeral in Kerala. However, his nephew/4^th respondent (party respondent) claimed that he was the nearest relative and sought to perform the funeral rites in UAE itself. The two preferred separate petitions before the Indian Consulate in Dubai, resulting in a situation where the deceased's remains was left in a Forensic Laboratory in Ajman while the NORKA ROOTS was requested to verify both the relatives' claims.

The petitioner approached the High Court wanting to repatriate his remains. Accordingly, the Court passed an order on October 22 directing the Union Ministry of External Affairs and the India Consulate in Dubai to repatriate the mortal body. The petitioner was directed to bear the expenses for repatriation and to be the point of contact.

Referring to a 1995 reported Apex Court decision [PT Parmanand Katara v. Union of India], the Court observed that dead persons also deserve dignity and respect. It remarked that if the petitioner or the party respondent is after the deceased's properties, it should not stand in the way of his decent burial. The dispute over property can be fought in a competent court, it said.

Later on, the Court felt that certain additional directions were required to ensure his decent burial in case of any dispute between the petitioner and the party respondent. It directed that the burial must be done within 4 days of receipt of the body by the petitioner.

The Court observed that the petitioner can perform the funeral rites as per religion and that the burial is to be conducted at St. Andrew's Church, Sasthamcotta, Kollam, with the consent of the Church authorities. It was made clear that the party respondent can attend the funeral but not cause any issues.

It also suo motu impleaded the SHO of Sasthamcotta and Thekkumbhagam police stations and directed them to ensure that there is no law-and-order problem till the burial is completed. The District Medical Officer was also impleaded to make necessary arrangements to preserve the dead body until the burial is over.

The case is now posted to November 26.

Counsel for the petitioner: Dhanesh V. Madhavan, Muhammed Shadi Shabeeb P.S., Devika K.R

Counsel for the respondents: O.M. Shalina – DSGI, Jawahar Jose, Gokul R. Nair, S. Sivachalam