Kerala High Court: In a set of two writ appeals filed by Asha Lawrence and Sujatha Boban, daughters of Communist Party of India (Marxist) politician late MM Lawrence, against the impugned order of the Single Judge wherein their challenge against donation of their father’s body to the Government Medical College was rejected, the Division Bench of Nitin Jamdar, CJ. and S. Manu*, J. upheld the impugned order stating that there was no perversity in the decision of the College which the impugned order has approved of. The Court stated that MM Lawrence was indisputably being taken care of by his son in the last stages of his life, who honoured the last wish of the deceased to have his body be donated to science.
Background
MM Lawrence, a well-known political leader, passed away on 21-09-2024. According to his son, MM Lawrence wanted to provide his body to the Government Medical College (‘the College’) after his demise. His son, therefore, reported this wish to the authorised officer under the (‘the Act’).
Asha Lawrence filed a writ petition after discovering that the body would be handed over to the College. She contended that MM Lawrence followed Christianity, was a member of St. Francis Xavier’s Church, and was not averse to any religious rituals. Therefore, she objected to the stance of her brother and contended that the body of her father should be buried according to Christian religious practices. Her brother, in turn, contended that their father had expressed his desire to his son and also to his colleagues and friends, to hand over the body to the College. The Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by directing the Principal of the College to decide after considering the objection raised by the Asha.
Per the direction, the College formed a committee and issued an order concluding that there was no doubt regarding the consent given by the late MM Lawrence and that he had not retracted it at any time. It was concluded that the consent to hand over the body was valid and in accordance with the Act. Therefore, the Principal directed that the body of the late MM Lawrence be accepted and transferred to the Anatomy Department to be embalmed and preserved till being taken up for teaching purposes.
Another writ petition was filed by Asha and her sister challenging the aforesaid decision, on the grounds that for the expression of request to be valid, as under Section of the , should be made by the deceased to the authorised officer during his lifetime. However, the Single Judge dismissed the writ petition vide the impugned judgment, against which the present appeal was preferred. AnalysisThe Court perused the Act and its legislative history, especially Section 4A and noted that an analytical reading of Section 4A (1) reveals that the provision does not mandate the expression of the request by the person directly to the authorised officer.
The Court stated that if the contended interpretation is accepted, it will give rise to several practical difficulties as a person, in his last illness, would be forced to approach the competent authority to give a declaration. Also, it would mean adding words to the statute that are not present. Thus, the Court held that the party in lawful possession of the body after the death knowing the request made by the deceased person can report the fact to the authorised officer, unless the said party has reason to believe that the request was subsequently withdrawn.
Noting the aforesaid, the Court laid down the following factors that the authorised officer may need to verify under Section 4A (1):
Whether there was an unequivocal request by the deceased during his last illness.
If the request was made orally, whether it was in the presence of two or more persons.
Whether the body was accepted from a person in the lawful custody of it.
The Court held that if these aspects are satisfied, the requirements of the provisions of Section 4A (1) must be treated as fulfilled. Hence, the Court rejected the contended interpretation of Section 4A (1).
The Court noted that the Act does not contemplate any disputes and their resolution in the matter of handing over of the body, other than what is dealt with under Section 5. If any doubt or dispute arises for the purpose of Section 4, the matter shall be referred to a Magistrate of First Class. The Court noted that there was no provision in the Act enabling the resolution of disputes of any other nature. Additionally, the authorised officer has not been conferred with any authority to undertake dispute resolution or adjudication. If any factual dispute arises regarding the satisfaction of the requirements under the provisions of Section 4A, the authorised officer may not be equipped to decide the matter as he would normally be a medical professional who is not trained or equipped to undertake the dispute resolution.
The Court stated that despite such a legal position, the College undertook the exercise of dispute resolution as per court directions. Hence, the Court opined that it was indispensable for it to also take note of the primary factual aspects for the analysis of the reasonableness and sustainability of the impugned order.
Accordingly, the Court noted that MM Lawrence’s son was indisputably taking care of him during the final stages of his life, and it was to this son that he had expressed his desire to provide his body for medical studies on several occasions. His son cited several persons in whose presence MM Lawrence had expressed his wish, which was confirmed by two relatives in the proceedings conducted by the College.
The Court noted that it had to be kept in mind that MM Lawrence was not on good terms with his daughters. Further, the only claim of Asha was that he was a church member, and he had followed religious customs and rites in all affairs of the family. She did not claim that her father at any time expressed a desire to have his body buried as per Christian religious customs and practices. This claim was solely based on an inference that she attempted to draw from the fact that her father had followed certain religious practices. The Court opined that this, by itself, was not a sufficient reason to reject the more probable case of the son.
The Court also noted that nothing was stated by the daughters as to why the stance of their brother should not be accepted. The Court further noted that there is no contradiction in as much as MM Lawrence could be a devout Christian and yet wished to donate his body to science.
Regarding the contention that the request of MM Lawrence cannot be considered unequivocal since his daughters disputed it, the Court held that the requirement of Section 4A (1) is an “unequivocal request” by the person himself. The expression intends to ensure that the person who makes the request should be clear about providing his body and the request should be unmistakable. Others disputing it can have no impact particularly when it is without even a claim regarding any other wish expressed by the deceased.
Regarding the scope of factual analysis in a writ petition, the Court stated that quasi-judicial and administrative functions of authorities can be subjected to scrutiny in writ jurisdiction, but appellate jurisdiction cannot be exercised in judicial review. Reviewing factual conclusions made by the lower court, tribunal, or authority, even if they are incorrect, isgenerally not within the contours of the writ jurisdiction. In-depth analysis and reappreciation of factual findings in the impugned decisions akin to an appeal are not within the constraints of writ jurisdiction. Hence, the basic dispute as to what the wish of the late Mr. Lawrence was regarding the handling of his body after his demise, which essentially encompasses factual disputes, the Court stated that this Court couldn’t carry out an inquiry akin to a civil trial.
The Court held that there was no material based on which the findings of the College could be treated as perverse. Additionally, there were no nonconformities with the Act in the proceedings and conclusions of the College. The Court also held that the request conveyed by the son broadly satisfied the requirement of Section 4A (1).
Holding the aforesaid, the Court held that the impugned order cannot be termed as improper or perverse and no case was made out for interference under Article of the . Thus, the appeals were rejected, and the impugned order of the College was upheld.
[Asha Lawrence v. State of Kerala, Writ Appeal No. 1857 of 2024, decided on 18-12-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioner: Advocates Krishna Raj, R. Pratheesh, E.S. Soni, Sreeraja V., and Laxmi Priyaa N.P.
For the respondent: State Attorney N. Manoj Kumar, Senior Advocate V.V. Sidharthan, Advocate D.G. Vipin, Advocate B.S. Swathikumar, Senior Advocate and Mediator N.N. Sugunapalan, Advocate Manisha V.V, Advocate Anna Rose Nambadan, Advocate Daniel A.J., Advocate Akhila Shukkoor Veliyaveettil and Advocate P.M. Benzir
Buy Constitution of India
The post appeared first on .