MP High Court quashes rights panel order, says keeping body at home not illegal

Citing this article, the Madhya Pradesh Human Rights Commission (MPHRC) sought the DGP’s report asking to ascertain if the death was natural, whether the body had been cremated, and if scientific measures had been adopted to preserve the body and to stop the foul smell.

ADG Mishra did not allow the police to enter his home and his mother Shashimani moved the High Court against the order, arguing that her rights to life, dignity and freedom were being violated. The family maintained that the 84-year-old was alive and was being treated by an ayurveda practitioner.

After hearing arguments, Justice Atul Shreedharan reserved the matter on April 11 and delivered his judgment on June 17. “The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion,” stated the 16-page order, observing that the words of French philosopher Albert Camus rang true in the facts of this case.

Quashing the MPHRC’s February 14 order, the single bench held that it violated the petitioner’s right to privacy and thereby the fundamental right to life as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The petitioners argued that they did not agree with the death certificate and that signs of life, though feeble, existed. The petitioners attached a certificate by Vaid Radheshyam Vadiya that he was treating Kulmani Mishra since January 15. They questioned the news report, arguing that nobody knew the identity of the guards.

“If Kulamani Mishra had actually died on January 14 then nothing could have prevented the decomposition of the body and the stench of death would have permeated all over the immediate neighbourhood,” the petition pointed out.

The MPHRC’s counsel argued that Kulamani was dead, that the corpse had been kept unlawfully and would become a health hazard. The court said it was undisputed that there were no complaints from the neighbours and that the petitioners were living in the same house.

“The conduct of the petitioners may be at divergence with the established social norm. It may be based upon a perception which may not find the approval of many, yet the petitioners have the right to be different in thought, perception and action. Keeping the dead body of Kulamani Mishra (as is perceived and so stated on behalf of the Commission) at their residence may be revolting and abhorrent… and yet, under no circumstances can the State intervene and disturb the right to privacy of petitioners if the said act does not come within the ambit and scope of an offence or an illegality,” reads the judgment.

J P Rao, Registrar (Law), MPHRC, told The Indian Express that it was not necessary for the commission to challenge every verdict but it would take a decision after going through the order.