Justice V Lakshminarayanan remarked that even if the deceased was one of the blackest rogues of the 21^st century, his family still had the right to follow customary observance, in line with their beliefs. The court added that even if the accused was dead, his family was still alive and should be permitted to perform observance as per their beliefs.

“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 customary observances 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,” the court said.

Armstrong was hacked to death near his residence on July 5, 2024. The prime accused in the case, Nagendran, had died in police custody on October 9, 2025.

It may be noted that the High Court had previously ordered postmortem of Nagendran's body and collection of visceral samples since his family had alleged poisoning by police authorities.

Nagendran's wife, Visalatchi, approached the court seeking permission to conduct the remembrance gathering and customary rights associated with the funeral. It was submitted that since Nagendran's son Ashwathaman had also been arrayed as an accused and was remanded to custody, the customary funeral rites could not be conducted at the time of death. She had thus sought permission to conduct the remembrance gathering and rites, believing that it would help the departed soul attain salvation.

Though Visalatchi had made a representation to the state authorities seeking police protection, it was rejected. She thus approached the court. She submitted that the observance would be held only with 60 persons, between 6 pm and 9 pm on October 9, and assured the court that there wouldn't be any political messaging, erecting of banners or playing of provocative songs.

The State resisted the plea and submitted that the Inspector of Police had received inputs stating that there was a possibility of untoward incidents. The State submitted that the police have absolutely no issues in case the observance is held within the hours.

The court noted that though it could understand the apprehension of the police, the Tamil Nadu police was robust to ensure that nothing untoward would happen during the 3 hours during which the observance was to be held.

Thus, the court was inclined to permit the remembrance gathering, with 60 persons. The court added that if necessity arose, the Inspector could inform the petitioner to avoid the presence of persons who might create law and order issues. The court also directed that those participating in the observance shall not consume liquor and no banners or political messaging of any kind be displayed during the observance.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Kirubakaran for Mr. N. Ziavudeen

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. John Sathyan, State Public Prosecutor Assisted by Mr. Arun Anbumani Additional Public Prosecutor