Sixty people, three hours, no banners: that is the frame in which the Madras High Court has permitted first death anniversary rites for an accused in the BSP leader K. Armstrong murder case, who died a year ago, holding that a family is entitled to follow its customary observances.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Chennai: Setting aside the police rejection of a widow’s request, the Madras High Court has allowed first death anniversary rites for her late husband, P. Nagendran, who is described as the prime accused in the murder of BSP Tamil Nadu leader K. Armstrong, on October 9, subject to conditions on attendance, timing and conduct [Visalatchi v. The Commissioner of Police and Others].
Justice V. Lakshminarayanan disposed of the writ petition on October 8, 2026, allowing the observance from 6 pm to 9 pm on October 9, the day Nagendran’s first death anniversary fell. The allegations in the Armstrong murder case remain untested, the High Court was not examining the merits of the prosecution case, and every accused is presumed innocent until proved guilty.
The conditions
The observance was permitted at the address given in the petition, from 6 pm to 9 pm on October 9, 2026, on these conditions:
- The list of attendees must be sent to the Inspector of Police by 10 am on October 9.
- Attendance must not exceed 60 persons.
- The Inspector may direct the petitioner to keep out persons likely to cause law and order problems, and she must comply.
- No liquor may be consumed or distributed.
- No banners, political messaging or provocative songs are allowed, and only the observances listed in the petition may be performed.
Should any condition be breached, the police are free to bring the observance to an immediate end.
Where the plea came from
Armstrong, the Tamil Nadu president of the Bahujan Samaj Party, was hacked to death near his residence in Chennai on July 5, 2024. Nagendran died on October 9, 2025 while an accused in the case. The petition records that his son was also an accused and in custody, so the family said the funeral rites could not be performed at the time of death.
His widow, Visalatchi, came to the High Court after the police rejected her representation on October 5, 2026, citing law and order concerns based on inputs received by the Inspector of Police. She wanted a remembrance gathering and customary rites, which she said would help the departed soul attain salvation. Her counsel told the Court that attendance would be limited to 60 people, the event would run from 6 pm to 9 pm, and there would be no political messaging, banners or provocative songs.
State Public Prosecutor John Sathyan, for the State, opposed the plea on the ground that the police had received inputs about a possible untoward incident. He added that the police would have no objection if the observance were held strictly within the stated hours.
The Court’s reasoning
The police concern was acknowledged by Justice Lakshminarayanan, given the profile of the case. Even so, he held that the Tamil Nadu police were equipped to ensure that nothing untoward happened during a three-hour window. On the family’s right to perform the rites, the Court observed:
“Even if deceased was one of the blackest rogues of 21st century, his family is entitled to follow customary observance.”
The Court recorded that the family is entitled to follow the customary observances in line with its beliefs, and that the surviving family members are alive and entitled to observe them.
Why the order matters
The order separates a family’s right to perform last rites and remembrance rituals from the gravity of the allegations against the deceased. The Court did not comment on the merits of the murder case, in which the allegations remain untested, and treated the plea purely as a question of customary observance.
It also shows how courts balance such a right against law and order concerns in a high-profile case: by allowing the observance but capping numbers, fixing timings, barring political messaging and giving the police power to exclude individuals and stop the event on a breach.
Case Title: Visalatchi v. The Commissioner of Police and Others [W.P. (Crl.) No. 2747 of 2026]
Bench: Justice V. Lakshminarayanan, Madras High Court
Date of Order: October 8, 2026
Appearances: Mr. Kirubakaran with Mr. N. Ziavudeen for the petitioner; Mr. John Sathyan, State Public Prosecutor, assisted by Mr. Arun Anbumani, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondents