Introduction:

The Kerala High Court, while dealing with a habeas corpus petition in Santon Lama v. State of Kerala, WP (Crl.) No. 1421 of 2025, was confronted with a deeply disturbing narrative of institutional neglect, administrative apathy, and systemic failure that ultimately culminated in the death of Suraj Lama, an Indian citizen deported from Kuwait. The matter was heard by a Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M. B. Snehalatha, who were informed that the unidentified body recovered from the Judicial City area at Kalamassery had been conclusively identified through DNA analysis as that of Suraj Lama. The petition was moved by Lama’s son, Santon Lama, with the assistance of the Kerala Legal Services Authority (KeLSA), seeking judicial intervention after Suraj Lama went missing soon after his arrival at Kochi International Airport. What began as a habeas corpus plea transformed into a grave indictment of the system—spanning immigration authorities, airport security, hospital administration, and police machinery—each of which, despite repeated opportunities, failed to protect a visibly vulnerable individual. The Court’s observations reflect not merely adjudication of a missing person’s case, but a profound expression of institutional remorse and constitutional concern over the erosion of the State’s duty to protect life and dignity.

Arguments on Behalf of the Petitioner:

On behalf of the petitioner, it was contended that Suraj Lama, an Indian national deported from Kuwait pursuant to official orders, arrived at Kochi in an extremely vulnerable physical and mental condition. The petitioner emphasised that Lama was visibly disoriented, appeared to suffer from cognitive impairments, and was incapable of navigating his surroundings independently. Despite this, all statutory authorities—including immigration officials, airport security, and other agencies responsible for receiving deportees—cleared him and permitted him to leave the airport without escort, assistance, or verification of safe handover to family members. It was argued that this amounted to a complete abdication of the State’s constitutional obligation to safeguard life under Article 21. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that a missing complaint was lodged as early as 8 October 2025, yet the police machinery failed to treat the case with the seriousness it deserved, despite multiple sightings of Lama by members of the public in the days following his disappearance. It was further pointed out that the police themselves encountered Lama on 10 October 2025, found him wandering in a poor state of health, and took him into protective custody, only to send him to Kalamassery Medical College Hospital. Shockingly, the hospital discharged him on the ground that there were no apparent medical issues, ignoring the broader context of his vulnerability and the fact that he was a missing person. The petitioner argued that had the police followed established protocols for missing persons, including verification of identity, circulation of photographs, coordination between police stations, and engagement with family members, Suraj Lama could have been safely reunited with his family. The continued inaction and fragmented responses, it was submitted, directly contributed to his disappearance and eventual death, warranting strict judicial scrutiny and accountability.

Arguments on Behalf of the State:

The State of Kerala, while placing factual updates before the Court, sought to explain the sequence of events and the steps taken during the investigation. The State informed the Court that a Special Investigation Team (SIT) had already been constituted pursuant to earlier directions of the High Court, recognising the seriousness of the matter. It was submitted that upon receipt of information regarding an unidentified body recovered from the Judicial City area at Kalamassery, the SIT had promptly initiated forensic and DNA analysis to ascertain the identity of the deceased. The State placed on record the DNA report confirming that the recovered body was indeed that of Suraj Lama. While acknowledging procedural gaps, the State sought to submit that the investigation was ongoing and that the authorities were cooperating fully with the Court’s directions. However, the State did not dispute the fact that Lama had been found earlier by police officials and taken to a hospital, nor could it provide a satisfactory explanation as to why he was discharged and left unattended despite his apparent vulnerability. The State also conceded that coordination failures existed between various departments, including the police and medical authorities. Nevertheless, it urged the Court to allow the investigation to reach its logical conclusion and assured that corrective steps would be taken to avoid recurrence of such incidents in the future.

Court’s Judgment:

The Kerala High Court delivered strong and emotionally resonant observations, underscoring the gravity of the failures that led to Suraj Lama’s death. The Bench noted that the case revealed a “prima facie systemic collapse” at multiple levels, beginning from the moment Lama landed at Kochi after being deported. The Court expressed deep concern that a person in such a visibly vulnerable condition was allowed to exit the airport without any form of assistance, supervision, or confirmation of safe custody. The judges observed that deportation is not a mere administrative act but one that imposes a heightened duty of care upon the receiving State, especially when the deportee appears incapable of self-care. The Court recalled that despite a missing complaint being registered on 8 October 2025, Suraj Lama was seen by several citizens thereafter and even by the police themselves, yet the system failed to connect the dots. In particularly scathing remarks, the Bench pointed out that when the Thrikkakara Police found Lama on 10 October 2025 and took him into protective custody, the opportunity to save his life was very much alive. The Court noted that had proper missing-person protocols been followed—such as verifying identity, cross-checking missing complaints, and contacting family members—Suraj Lama would, in all likelihood, be alive today. The discharge of Lama from Kalamassery Medical College Hospital without any protective arrangement was also viewed as a grave lapse, reflecting a narrow and mechanical approach to healthcare that ignored the social and legal context of the patient. Upon confirmation of the DNA report, the Court directed the Station House Officer, Nedumbassery, or the Investigating Officer to be personally present before the Court and to produce the entire case file relating to the missing complaint, along with the post-mortem report, for judicial perusal. The Court further directed the Superintendent of Ernakulam Medical College, Kalamassery, to release the body of Suraj Lama to his family without delay, enabling them to perform last rites with dignity. In an unusually candid expression of institutional remorse, the Court observed that such an incident should never have occurred and stated that it could “only apologise to the family on behalf of the system.” The matter was posted for further hearing, with the Court signalling continued oversight to ensure accountability and reform.