'Regretful Litigation' : Kerala High Court On Daughter Opposing Donation Of CPI(M) Leader's Body To Medical College

The Kerala High while dismissing the appeals filed by daughters of M. M. Lawrence against the decision of Single Judge allowing the donation of CPI(M) Veteran to Ernakulam Government Medical College observed that it is “preferable that quietus be reached in this case”. The Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu observed in the order that they consider the appeals to be “regretful litigation”.

The veteran leader passed away on September 21, 2024 at the age of 95. He was the District Secretary of CPI(M) and was jailed during the emergency time. In the year 1980, he became Lok Sabha Member from Idukki district in Kerala, and later served as convener of LDF, member of the CPI(M) Central Committee and State and National secretary of Centre for Indian Trade Unions (CITU). His body was kept embalmed in the medical college due to successive cases filed on the issue regarding donation of his body to the medical college.

Background of the Case

One of the daughters of M. M. Lawrence, Asha Lawrence had approached the High Court 2 days after the death of her father objecting her siblings' decision to hand over her father's body to Ernakulam Government Medical College. She pleaded that her father followed Christian rituals and rites and the body ought to be buried as per Christian rites. She submitted that she had not consented to the donation of her father's body. The Single Bench of High Court on the same day disposed the petition directing the Principal of the Medical College to hear the daughter's objections before taking a decision on accepting the body.

The Principal constituted a committee to hear the matter. It was decided by the Committee, after hearing Asha Lawrence, her siblings and others to accept the donation of the body. Asha Lawrence again approached the High Court arguing that the hearing conducted by the Medical College was not proper. The Single Bench of the High Court dismissed the petition observing that the deceased had expressed his desire to donate his body for medical studies as per Section 4A of the Kerala Anatomy Act. Against this order, the daughter preferred an appeal before the Division Bench. She argued that the conclusion arrived by the Single Judge that the deceased had expressed his wish to donate his body is unverified. The other daughter of Lawrence, Sujatha Boban had withdrawn her consent for donation of her father's body and filed a separate appeal before the High Court against the order of Single Judge.

Before hearing the arguments in details, the Division Bench had suggested mediation to see if the matter can be settled between them. However, the parties could not arrive at a consensus and the mediation failed.

Decision of the Court

The siblings of Asha Lawrence informed the Court that she was not in good terms with her father. The Court noted that Asha Lawrence has no claim that she took care of her father after he fell ill and there was any occasion for the father to reveal his wishes to her.

The Court said that her submission that her father was a member of church and followed religious customs and rites is not a sufficient reason to reject her brother's submission that his father had expressed his wish to donate his body after his death.

The High Court observed that it cannot decide on factual disputes in its writ jurisdiction. The Court added that the Kerala Anatomy Act does not contemplate adjudication of dispute regarding intention of the deceased. The Court noted that the parties could have filed a civil suit to obtain an injunction order restraining the donation of their father's body by their brother, M. L. Sajeevan.

The Court noted that Sajeevan was taking care of his father for almost 3 – 4 years. Sajeevan had submitted that his father had expressed his intention to donate his body to science. Two of their relatives gave their statements confirming this before the Committee constituted by the Medical College Principal. The Court observed that a devout Christian can have wishes to donate his body to science. The Court said that the Medical College had taken a decision on the matter on the basis of probabilities in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Court said that the order of Medical College cannot be held as improper.

'Unequivocal Request' In Section 4A Refers To The Wish Of The Deceased

The Court held that the words 'unequivocal request' mentioned in Section 4A is regarding the intention of the person making that request. For context, Section 4A is as follows:

4A: Taking possession of dead bodies with the prior consent of deceased persons: (1) If any person, either in writing at any time or orally in the presence of two or more persons during his last illness, has expressed an unequivocal request that his body be used for the purpose of conducting anatomical examination and dissection after his death, the party lawfully in possession of his body after his death, may, unless, the said party has reason to believe that the request was subsequently withdrawn, report the fact to the authorized officer and the permit the said office to take possession of the body and hand it over to authority in charge of a teaching medical institution if it is required by that authority.

The Court rejected the argument of Asha Lawrence that the request was not 'unequivocal' as there is dispute regarding the wish of the deceased. The Court held that dispute raised by others on the intention of the deceased can have no impact in this matter.

“Requirement of Section 4A (1) is “unequivocal request” by the person. Intention of the expression, obviously, is to ensure that the person who makes the request should be clear in his mind about providing his body and the request should be unmistakable.

Request Need Not Be Made Before The Authorised Officer

The Court said that from the plain reading of Section 4A, it is evident that the provision only contemplates that the person should have expressed his decision to donate the body in front of two witnesses. The Court rejected the argument of Asha Lawrence that the request should have been made in the front of the authorized officer.

The Court observed that such an interpretation would be “adding words to the statute that are not present”. The Court further said that this would cause several practical difficulties, as the person in his final illness will be forced to approach the competent authority for expressing his intention.

Case No: WA 1857/ 2024

Case Title: Asha Lawrence v State of Kerala and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 810