Introduction:

The Kerala High Court has emphasised that the right to dignity does not end with a person’s death and that relatives cannot allow their personal disagreements to prevent the deceased from receiving a respectful and timely burial. Observing that ensuring a decent burial is a collective responsibility of relatives, society and the State, the Court issued specific directions for the funeral of a 71-year-old man whose mortal remains had remained in a forensic laboratory in the United Arab Emirates for approximately one-and-a-half years following a dispute among his relatives.

Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan made these observations while considering a petition filed by the deceased’s niece, who sought permission to bring his mortal remains from the UAE to Kerala so that the funeral could be conducted. The dispute had arisen between the niece and the deceased’s nephew, who both claimed the right to make arrangements for the funeral. Their competing requests had resulted in uncertainty over the repatriation and burial of the body, leaving it in a forensic laboratory in Ajman since the man’s death in 2025.

The deceased was an unmarried man who died by suicide while residing in the UAE. Following his death, his niece approached the authorities seeking to repatriate his remains to Kerala and conduct the funeral there. The deceased’s nephew, who was arrayed as the fourth respondent, opposed this request. He claimed to be the deceased’s nearest relative and sought to perform the funeral rites in the UAE itself.

Both relatives submitted separate petitions before the Indian Consulate in Dubai, creating a situation in which the authorities were required to consider competing claims regarding the handling of the deceased’s remains. The matter was also referred to NORKA ROOTS, the Kerala government’s organisation dealing with the welfare of non-resident Keralites, for verification of the claims made by the two relatives.

In the meantime, the deceased’s body remained at a forensic laboratory in Ajman. The disagreement, which concerned the place and manner of conducting the funeral, consequently resulted in a prolonged delay in providing the deceased with a proper burial.

The niece approached the Kerala High Court seeking intervention to facilitate the repatriation of the mortal remains. On October 22, the Court directed the Union Ministry of External Affairs and the Indian Consulate in Dubai to take steps to bring the body back to India. The petitioner was directed to bear the expenses of repatriation and act as the point of contact for the process.

However, the Court subsequently considered that further directions were necessary to prevent the dispute between the relatives from creating additional obstacles after the body reached Kerala. It therefore issued specific instructions regarding the time, place and arrangements for the burial, while also directing the police and medical authorities to ensure that the funeral could be completed without disruption.

The judgment draws upon the broader legal principle that human dignity deserves protection even after death. In this context, the Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in P.T. Parmanand Katara v. Union of India (1995), which recognised that a deceased person’s body must be treated with dignity and respect.

The proceedings also raise an important question concerning the limits of family disagreements. While relatives may have genuine differences regarding funeral arrangements, the Court emphasised that such disagreements cannot become an indefinite barrier to the deceased’s right to a dignified burial. The focus of judicial intervention, therefore, had to be on ensuring that the body was respectfully buried rather than allowing the proceedings to turn into a contest over which relative would prevail.

Arguments of the Parties:

The petitioner, the deceased man’s niece, approached the Kerala High Court seeking permission and assistance to repatriate his mortal remains from the UAE to Kerala. Her request was founded on the need to ensure that her uncle received a proper funeral in his home State.

The petitioner sought to bring the body back so that the funeral rites could be performed in accordance with the applicable religious practices. The prolonged retention of the mortal remains in a forensic laboratory had created an urgent need for intervention, particularly because the disagreement between the relatives had prevented the funeral from taking place.

The petitioner’s request also required the Court to consider the practical difficulties involved in repatriating a body from another country. The Court addressed these concerns by directing the Union Ministry of External Affairs and the Indian Consulate in Dubai to facilitate the repatriation. It further directed the petitioner to bear the expenses and act as the point of contact for the necessary arrangements.

The fourth respondent, the deceased’s nephew, had a different position regarding the funeral. He claimed that he was the nearest relative of the deceased and sought to conduct the funeral rites in the UAE itself. His competing claim was one of the reasons the authorities had not been able to proceed with the repatriation and funeral arrangements.

Both relatives had approached the Indian Consulate in Dubai separately, resulting in uncertainty over whose request should be acted upon. NORKA ROOTS was consequently asked to verify their respective claims.

The dispute was therefore not merely about the transportation of the deceased’s body. It involved competing assertions by family members regarding their relationship with the deceased and their entitlement to make decisions concerning his final rites.

The Court also took note of the possibility that the disagreement could be connected with competing interests in the deceased’s properties. It observed that any dispute concerning the estate or property of the deceased must be resolved through appropriate legal proceedings and should not interfere with the obligation to provide him with a dignified burial.

The Court’s observations indicate that the possibility of a property dispute was a concern in the proceedings. However, it did not permit such considerations to delay the funeral or allow the handling of the mortal remains to become a means of pursuing competing claims.

The case summary does not set out detailed written submissions from the fourth respondent or the Union authorities on every aspect of the dispute. Accordingly, the competing positions can be understood from the requests made before the Indian Consulate and the relief sought in the High Court proceedings.

The central issue requiring the Court’s attention was how to ensure that the deceased’s body was brought back and buried without allowing the disagreement between the relatives to continue indefinitely. The Court was therefore required to balance the relatives’ competing claims with the overriding need to protect the dignity of the deceased.

Court’s Judgment:

The Kerala High Court approached the matter by emphasising that the deceased’s dignity and the need for a proper burial must take precedence over the continuing disagreement between his relatives. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan observed that the proceedings should not be treated as a contest between the petitioner and the fourth respondent. Instead, the Court had a responsibility to ensure that the mortal remains were given a lawful and dignified burial.

The Court made it clear that the disagreement of family members cannot be permitted to become an indefinite obstacle to the funeral. Once a person has died, the obligation to treat the body with respect does not disappear merely because relatives are unable to agree on the arrangements.

In particularly significant observations, the Court stated that the responsibility for ensuring a decent burial rests not only with the immediate family but also with society and the State. It observed that if relatives fail to fulfil this responsibility, society must step in, and if society fails, the State must intervene.

The Court explained that a person’s financial position cannot determine the dignity accorded to their mortal remains. Whether the deceased was wealthy or poor, every individual was entitled to a respectful burial. The Court expressed this principle in unequivocal terms:

“There is no ‘poor man’s dead body’ or ‘wealthy man’s dead body’.”

The observation reflects the Court’s understanding that dignity in death is a universal human concern and cannot be made dependent on social or economic status. A decent burial is not a privilege reserved for individuals whose relatives are financially capable or socially influential. It is a basic responsibility that must be discharged in respect of every deceased person.

The Court also referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in P.T. Parmanand Katara v. Union of India (1995). The reference was significant because the Supreme Court had recognised the importance of treating a deceased person’s body with dignity and respect. Drawing upon this principle, the Kerala High Court emphasised that the obligation to respect human dignity does not cease immediately upon death.

The Court’s approach was not limited to making general observations. It issued practical directions to ensure that the deceased’s body could be brought to Kerala and that the funeral would not be delayed further.

On October 22, the Court had directed the Union Ministry of External Affairs and the Indian Consulate in Dubai to take necessary steps for the repatriation of the mortal remains from the UAE. The petitioner was directed to bear the expenses associated with bringing the body back and to serve as the point of contact for the repatriation process.

The Court subsequently considered the possibility that the disagreement between the petitioner and the fourth respondent could continue even after the body arrived in Kerala. It therefore found it necessary to issue additional directions governing the funeral itself.

The Court directed that the burial must take place within four days of the petitioner receiving the mortal remains. This time-bound direction was intended to prevent further delay and ensure that the body would not remain unburied because of continuing family disagreements.

The Court further permitted the petitioner to perform the funeral rites in accordance with the applicable religious practices. It specified that the burial should be conducted at St. Andrew’s Church, Sasthamkotta, in Kollam district, subject to the consent of the Church authorities.

The direction concerning the place of burial provided clarity regarding the arrangements and sought to avoid another dispute over where the funeral should take place. By fixing a specific location, subject to the Church authorities’ consent, the Court sought to ensure that the process could move forward without unnecessary uncertainty.

At the same time, the Court did not completely exclude the fourth respondent from participating in the funeral. It clarified that he was entitled to attend the funeral but must not create any disturbance or cause difficulties in carrying out the burial.

This direction reflects the Court’s effort to distinguish between a relative’s ability to participate in the final rites and the ability to obstruct them. The fourth respondent could attend and pay his respects, but his disagreement with the petitioner could not be used to prevent the funeral from proceeding in accordance with the Court’s directions.

The Court also addressed the possibility of a law-and-order situation arising during the burial. Recognising that the family dispute could potentially lead to confrontation, it exercised its powers to suo motu implead the Station House Officers of the Sasthamcotta and Thekkumbhagam police stations.

The police officers were directed to ensure that no law-and-order problem arose until the burial was completed. Their involvement was intended to provide the necessary protection and ensure that the funeral could take place peacefully.

In addition, the Court impleaded the District Medical Officer and directed the officer to make the necessary arrangements for preserving the mortal remains until the burial was completed. This direction addressed the practical need to maintain the body in an appropriate condition while the repatriation and funeral arrangements were being carried out.

The inclusion of the police and medical authorities demonstrates that the Court considered the matter from a practical as well as a legal perspective. A direction to conduct a burial within a specified period would have limited value if there were no arrangements for preserving the body or ensuring that the funeral could take place without disruption. The Court therefore sought to coordinate the responsibilities of the concerned authorities so that its directions could be effectively implemented.

Another important aspect of the Court’s observations concerned the possible property dispute involving the deceased’s estate. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan remarked that if either the petitioner or the fourth respondent was interested in the deceased’s properties, such an interest should not stand in the way of a decent burial.

The Court clarified that any dispute relating to the deceased’s property could be pursued before a competent court. Questions concerning inheritance, ownership or other civil rights must be resolved through appropriate legal proceedings. They cannot be allowed to delay the performance of the deceased’s final rites.

This distinction is important because disputes following a person’s death can sometimes involve both immediate questions concerning the body and longer-term disagreements concerning property or succession. The Court’s approach makes clear that these matters must be kept separate. The need to resolve a property dispute does not justify withholding or delaying a dignified burial.

The Court’s intervention also illustrates the importance of judicial directions that address the actual circumstances preventing relief. Rather than simply directing the relatives to resolve their disagreement, the Court identified the steps required to complete the burial, including repatriation, responsibility for expenses, the time limit, the place of burial, police protection and preservation of the body.

The judgment’s broader message is that the deceased cannot be left without a proper burial merely because those who survive him are unable to reach an agreement. Family members may have competing claims or personal disagreements, but those conflicts must not override the basic responsibility to treat the dead with respect.

The Court has posted the matter to November 26 for further consideration. Its directions, however, establish a clear framework for the repatriation and burial of the deceased, with the objective of ensuring that the funeral is conducted within the prescribed period and without disruption.

The petitioner was represented by advocates Dhanesh V. Madhavan, Muhammed Shadi Shabeeb P.S. and Devika K.R. The respondents were represented by DSGI O.M. Shalina, Jawahar Jose and Gokul R. Nair, along with S. Sivachalam.

By intervening in the matter, the Kerala High Court has reaffirmed that dignity is not confined to the living. The responsibility to provide a respectful burial is a shared human and public obligation. Relatives may disagree over funeral arrangements, and property disputes may be pursued through the appropriate legal forum, but neither can justify leaving a deceased person’s body without a dignified farewell. The Court’s directions seek to ensure that the deceased receives the respect owed to every human being, irrespective of wealth, status or family circumstances.