The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) held that a deceased body cannot be used for protest, stressing dignified burial under Article 21. Justices N. Sathish Kumar and M. Jothiraman criticised delays in last rites, calling it a violation of fundamental rights.
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court recently ruled that a deceased person’s body cannot be used as a tool for protest. A Bench comprising Justices N Sathish Kumar and M Jothiraman expressed dismay over the prolonged delay in conducting last rites for a young man because his body was being used in protests.
It said,
“We express our anguish that the dead body is being used as a means of protest for days together.Providing a decent burial is also part of the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
ALSO READ: “Surgery Successful, But Patient Dead”: Chief Justice of Cal HC Slams Civic Body
The observations were made while the Court dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) connected to the alleged custodial death of a 26-year-old Scheduled Caste youth from Krishnarayapuram village in Sivagangai district.
The Bench concluded that the petition was filed for “publicity interest” and lacked merit, and accordingly dismissed it.
The PIL had been lodged by C Selvakumar, President of the Madurai District Devendrakula Velalar Uravinar Sangam, regarding the death of Aakash, who allegedly died from custodial torture while in judicial custody.
The petition claimed that despite the severity of the allegations, no arrests had been made and the investigation was progressing slowly. It also contended that the delay in releasing the body had prevented the family from performing the last rites.
The petitioner sought directions to arrest the accused police personnel under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and asked for the investigation to be made impartial by transferring local police officials.
The State informed the Court that a separate petition had already been pending before a single-judge of the High Court since March 9, and that judge had issued several directions and was closely monitoring the probe. It was also noted that the case had been transferred to the CB-CID and that the FIR already invoked relevant provisions, including those under the SC/ST Act.
The Bench took these points into account and observed that a Deputy Superintendent of Police had been appointed to supervise the investigation. Given this context, the Court found no reason to entertain another PIL seeking similar relief.
The Bench further noted that the petitioner had sent a representation by email on March 22, 2026 at 11:27 pm and filed the writ petition the following day. It held that such haste, together with the ongoing monitored investigation, suggested the petition lacked bona fides and was motivated by extraneous reasons.
The Court said,
“The manner in which the present petition has been filed clearly indicates that it has been instituted for extraneous reasons….The present writ petition is nothing but a publicity interest litigation and is devoid of merits,”
Addressing the contention that the family could not perform the last rites, the Court clarified that the State had not prevented them from doing so.
It said,
“It is not the State or its officials who are preventing the conduct of the last rites.”
The Court observed that ongoing protests had contributed to the delay and that it was for the family members and others concerned to proceed with the burial. Consequently, the plea was dismissed.
The petitioner was represented by advocate K Kannan. The Election Commission was represented by advocate Niranjan Rajagopal. The National Commission for Scheduled Castes and the National Human Rights Commission were represented by Deputy Solicitor General K Govindarajan. The Tamil Nadu State Adi Dravidar Welfare Commission and the District Collector were represented by Additional Advocate General M Ajmal Khan, assisted by Additional Government Pleader A Kannan. The Director General of Police and CB-CID were represented by Additional Public Prosecutor RM Anbunithi.
Case Title: Selva Kumar Vs Chief Election Commissioner.
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE