Delhi High Court Nod To Transfer Mortal Remains Of Man From UK, Notes Discrepancy In Consular Rules
The Delhi High Court has given nod for the transfer of mortal remains of a Hyderabad based man who died at Chertsey, United Kingdom last month.Justice Sanjeev Narula directed the Union Government to issue a No Objection Certificate to the wife of the deceased for transfer of her husband's mortal remains from United Kingdom to Hyderabad.The court set aside the communication passed by the...
The Delhi High Court has given nod for the transfer of mortal remains of a Hyderabad based man who died at Chertsey, United Kingdom last month.
Justice Sanjeev Narula directed the Union Government to issue a No Objection Certificate to the wife of the deceased for transfer of her husband's mortal remains from United Kingdom to Hyderabad.
The court set aside the communication passed by the Consular section of High Commission of India, London, on July 29 refusing to grant NOC for transfer of mortal remains.
The plea was moved by the deceased's father who highlighted the inconsistency in application of rules concerning the repatriation of mortal remains. He argued that the lack of uniformity in the guidelines applied by different Indian diplomatic posts worldwide, results in arbitrary treatment based solely on the geographical location of the death of the deceased person.
The court observed that the father's arguments bring to light the “rigidity of the current policy” as applied by the High Commission in London, advocating for a more humanitarian approach that considers the deceased's heritage, family wishes, and individual circumstances rather than strict bureaucratic criteria.
This case thus not only questions the administrative decision made by the High Commission but also the broader policy consistency and equity in consular services provided by India's foreign missions, the court said.
It added that the distinctions in guidelines issued by the High Commission of India in the United Kingdom, compared to those in Singapore and the USA, raise substantial concerns regarding the rationale and uniformity of consular services provided globally.
“These divergences seemingly lack a clear justification, especially given that the criteria should uniformly reflect the principle of facilitating the dignified repatriation of individuals of Indian origin,” the court said.
Justice Narula observed that the Indian High Commission in London mandates an OCI card for the repatriation of mortal remains, whereas other commissions do not impose such stringent requirements, suggesting arbitrariness in the application of these rules.
“This discrepancy is particularly striking given that the deceased, Mr. Watts, despite having altered his nationality, indisputably originated from India—a fact supported by his birth and familial ties to Indian citizens. Such an inconsistent application of policy, without transparent, rational justifications, contravene Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which ensures equality before the law and equal protection of the laws within the territory of India,” the court said.
It added that the insistence by the High Commission in London on an OCI card, unjustifiably discriminates against the petitioner father's rights to repatriate his son's remains in a manner respectful of his familial and cultural ties.
The court noted that while the guidelines of Singapore as well as USA permit such transportation, the only hurdle in the father's way was the manner in which the guidelines have been framed as far as the United Kingdom was concerned.
Title: ANTHONY WATTS v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 915