Madurai Bench Directs State to Perform Last Rites of Custodial Death Victim After Family Refuses Body for Over Three Months

The Madras High Court's Madurai Bench held that Article 21 dignity extends to mortal remains and authorised State authorities to conduct last rites of Akash Delison after his family declined to receive the body despite a specific judicial direction.

Justice L. Victoria Gowri, sitting singly at the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, on 16 June 2026 authorised the District Collector of Madurai, the Commissioner of Madurai City Municipal Corporation, and the Dean of Government Rajaji Hospital to arrange the dignified disposal of the mortal remains of Akash Delison — a Scheduled Caste man who died in alleged custodial torture. The family of the deceased had refused to receive the body for more than ninety days, even after the court had already transferred the investigation to the Crime Branch–Criminal Investigation Department (CBCID) and directed alteration of the penal provisions to include Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The court grounded its direction in Article 21 of the Constitution, holding that the right to dignity does not cease at death, and invoked Section 2(f) and Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Anatomy Act, 1951 and Tamil Nadu Anatomy Rules, 1951 as the operative statutory framework.

The Custodial Death and the Original Writ Petition

The petitioner, A. Rajeshkannan, filed W.P.Crl.(MD) No.1392 of 2026 before the Madurai Bench seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Home Secretary, the Director General of Police, and several district-level police officers to register an independent criminal case for murder arising out of alleged custodial torture. The complaint underlying the petition was dated 8 March 2026 and was preferred by the father of the deceased, Akash Delison.

The petitioner sought three specific reliefs: registration of an FIR under the relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 along with the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; transfer of investigation to the CBCID (the third respondent); and periodic monitoring by the court with a direction to complete the investigation within sixty days as required under the SC/ST (POA) Act.

The writ petition was disposed of after the court recorded the transfer of investigation to CBCID, the alteration of penal provisions to include Section 103 BNS read with Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, and after issuing appropriate directions on the conduct of the investigation. The matter then came up again under the caption “For Being Mentioned” on 16 June 2026.

The Body Retained for Over Ninety Days

After the disposal of the writ petition, the Additional Advocate General brought to the court's attention that the family of the deceased had declined to receive the mortal remains for more than three months, even though the post-mortem examination had been completed and all material evidence had been preserved. The body continued to remain in the mortuary and had undergone substantial decomposition. The prolonged retention was said to be creating serious public health concerns and causing hardship to the medical authorities responsible for preservation.

On 15 June 2026, the court directed the petitioner and the family to receive the mortal remains before 5.00 p.m. on the same day. When the matter was taken up on 16 June 2026, the petitioner's counsel fairly submitted that the family had not received the body.

The family's position, as placed before the court, was that they had serious apprehensions about the circumstances of the custodial death. They alleged a lack of transparency immediately after the occurrence and claimed that attempts had been made to persuade them to settle the matter. Their counsel relied on international instruments — the United Nations Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, the United Nations Convention against Torture, and the Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death — as well as the court's own decision in Kasturi v. State (Crl.O.P. No.20008 of 2013), to argue that every custodial death must be investigated independently and transparently. The family's position was that unless stronger action was taken against all officials allegedly involved, they were unwilling to receive the remains.

The State's Response and the Competing Principle

The Additional Advocate General countered that the grievances which had originally necessitated judicial intervention had already been substantially addressed. Investigation had been transferred to CBCID. A senior officer had been appointed as Investigating Officer. CCTV footage, hospital records, prison records, and police station records had been secured. The offence had been altered to include Section 103 BNS and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. On that basis, the State submitted that the continued refusal to receive the body could not be justified on the ground that investigation had not progressed.

The State further submitted that the body had remained unclaimed for more than ninety days, had undergone substantial decomposition, and that continued preservation served no investigative purpose and was inconsistent with the dignity that must be accorded to the deceased.

The Court's Reasoning on Dignity After Death

Justice Victoria Gowri accepted that custodial death allegations require the highest degree of judicial sensitivity and institutional accountability, and acknowledged that the court had intervened at the earliest stage, directed alteration of offences, ensured independent investigation, and monitored the matter until the immediate concerns were substantially addressed.

The court then turned to the constitutional dimension. It held that the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution has repeatedly been interpreted to include the right to decent and dignified treatment of mortal remains. The right to a decent burial or cremation, the court observed, is not merely a matter of religious observance but an extension of human dignity itself. The constitutional values that protect an individual during life continue to operate in respect of mortal remains after death.

The court drew on the Supreme Court's decision in Ashray Adhikar Abhiyan v. Union of India (AIR 2002 SC 554), which recognised the obligation of the State to ensure dignified disposal of unclaimed bodies. It also found guidance in the Jharkhand High Court's decision in Maithon Power Limited v. State of Jharkhand and Others (W.P.(C) No.6362 of 2023), which held that the right to dignity includes the right of a deceased person to receive a decent burial or cremation and that the State is under an obligation to ensure that mortal remains are not indefinitely retained or used as instruments of protest. The court noted that while the Jharkhand decision was not binding, its principles were founded on Article 21 and deserved respectful consideration.

The court also noted legislative developments in other States — the Rajasthan Honour of Dead Body Act, 2023 and the Haryana Honourable Disposal of Dead Body Act, 2024 — which recognise the State's obligation to ensure dignified disposal where family members refuse to perform the last rites. Though neither enactment applies in Tamil Nadu, the court held that they reinforce the constitutional principle that a deceased person cannot be denied dignified final rites merely because relatives decline to act.

Interpretation of the Tamil Nadu Anatomy Act, 1951

The court then examined the statutory framework. Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Anatomy Act, 1951 defines an “unclaimed body” as the body of a person who dies in a hospital, prison, or public place and is not claimed by any near relative within the prescribed period. Justice Victoria Gowri held that the expression “claimed” in the statutory definition necessarily contemplates actual acceptance and receipt of the body by the near relatives. The mere fact that relatives are identifiable does not mean the body ceases to be unclaimed when they expressly refuse to receive it despite repeated opportunities.

A conjoint reading of Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Anatomy Act, 1951 and Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Anatomy Rules, 1951, the court held, makes it clear that where a body remains unclaimed after completion of legal formalities, the State is empowered to arrange burial or cremation at Government expense.

In the present case, the post-mortem examination had long since been completed, all medico-legal formalities had been concluded, samples had been preserved, and the CBCID investigation was proceeding independently. The court found that no useful purpose would be served by continuing to preserve the body indefinitely.

Directions Issued

The court directed the District Collector of Madurai District, the Commissioner of Madurai City Municipal Corporation, the Dean of Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, and all other competent authorities to take immediate steps for the dignified disposal of the mortal remains of Akash Delison.

The disposal was directed to be undertaken strictly in accordance with the religious faith, customs, and practices professed by the deceased and his family, to the extent ascertainable from available records. Before the final rites, the District Administration was directed to ensure adequate photographic and videographic documentation of the body as part of the official record.

The expenditure for the disposal was directed to be initially borne by the State in accordance with Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Anatomy Rules, 1951 and other applicable governmental instructions.

The court was explicit that the dignified performance of the last rites by State authorities would not in any manner affect, dilute, or prejudice the ongoing investigation into the custodial death. The CBCID was directed to proceed with the investigation uninfluenced by the disposal of the body and to complete the investigation and file its final report before the jurisdictional court as expeditiously as possible.

The Registry was directed to communicate a copy of the order forthwith to the District Collector, Madurai District; the Commissioner, Madurai City Municipal Corporation; the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu; the Additional Director General of Police, CBCID; and the Dean, Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, for immediate compliance.

Outcome

With the above directions, the proceedings arising out of the mention were closed on 16 June 2026. The CBCID investigation into the custodial death of Akash Delison continues independently.