india

Updated: Jun 20, 2019 07:03 IST

A single-judge bench of the Jabalpur high court has quashed an order by the Madhya Pradesh State Human Rights Commission (MPSHRC) directing the police to enter the Bhopal home of a senior police officer to determine whether his father had died or was alive, ruling that it would violate the family’s right to privacy and that keeping a lifeless body at home didn’t constitute an offence.

The judgment said that keeping the dead body at the house “may be revolting” but it “does not come within the ambit and scope of an offence or an illegality”.

MPSHRC had passed an order on March 12 — following reports that additional director general of police (ADG) RK Mishra had kept his father Kulamani Mishra’s body at his 74 Bungalows residence in Bhopal since January — to form a team that would collect information about the ADG’s father.

Kulamani Mishra, 84, was declared dead by a local hospital on January 14. In an HT report on February 14, the former head of the state forensic department, Dr DK Satpathy, said he had inspected the body. “According to medical science, he was not alive,” he said, adding that it was a matter of faith for Mishra’s family members who believed he was in ‘samadhi’. The report further said that some of the staff members working at Mishra’s residence said they fell sick due to the stench from the body and took leave of absence.

Following MPSHRC’s order, Kulamani Mishra’s wife Shashimani approached the high court to quash the directive.

Justice Atul Sreedharan, in his order, said: “The petition succeeds, the impugned direction given by the Respondent No 2 (MPSHRC) to the State is held to be violative of the right to privacy of the petitioners...Therefore, the same is quashed.”

In his arguments, the petitioner’s advocate Ajay Mishra said Kulamani Mishra was alive and was receiving ayurvedic treatment. Appearing on behalf of the state, deputy advocate general Praveen Dubey argued that dealing with the human remains in a manner contrary to social norms was violative of the human rights of a dead person.

“Societal norms cannot compel individual behaviour to be in consonance with social expectations,” ruled justice Sreedharan, noting that there had been no complaint of a stench emanating from the house of the Mishras from their neighbours.

The judgment went on say, “Conduct of petitioners may be at divergence from the established social norm ….. Keeping the dead body of Mr Kulamani Mishra at their residence may be revolting… but it does not come within the ambit and scope of an offence or an illegality.”

The order was delivered on Tuesday, but copies of it were released on Wednesday.

Senior advocate Sanjay Hegde said he found the high court order to be “weird.”

“There is no fundamental right to keep the remains of a loved one, no matter how dear, in a state of natural decomposition. If the man is dead, the right to dignified exit is a part to right to life and if the body is creating a stench, the neighbours can object,” Hegde said.