Wish Of Deceased Considered, No Material Produced By Daughters To Contradict Those Wishes: SC Upholds Verdict Allowing Donation Of CPIM Leader's Body For Medical Education
The daughter of CPIM Leader MM Laurance had approached the High Court challenging the decision of his son to donate the body to Medical College for education purposes.
The Supreme Court upheld the Kerala High Court's decision allowing the donation of CPI(M) veteran M.M. Lawrence's body to the Ernakulam Government Medical College, emphasizing that the deceased's unequivocal wishes were duly considered and the daughters failed to present any material evidence contradicting his expressed desires.
The Bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice SVN Bhatti underscored the importance of respecting the unequivocal desires of the deceased in furtherance of medical education.
"The backdrop under which the desires and wish of the deceased was taken into consideration by the High Court together with the fact that the daughters have not produced any contrary material to contradict those wishes," the Court said.
Background of the Case
The petitioners, represented by Advocate R. Krishnaraj, sought to oppose the deceased's body donation, citing the sentiments of his two daughters. However, the Kerala High Court had previously observed that the deceased, a devout Christian, had explicitly expressed his wish to donate his body, a practice not prohibited by his faith.
The High Court also referenced Section 4A of the Kerala Anatomy Act, 1957, which permits individuals to donate their bodies for medical education. The Division Bench of the High Court took into account the deceased's expressed desires and found no material evidence from the petitioners to contradict those wishes.
"However, it is seen that the High Court had considered the wishes expressed by the deceased to donate his mortal remains for medical education to the Kalamassery Government Medical College. The Division Bench noted that fact that the deceased was a devout christian and nothing in his faith prohibits the donation of his mortal remains for a cause to further medical education. The Court also examined the provisions of Section 4A of the Kerala Anatomy Act, 1957, which permits donation of the body," the Court noted.
The Court, in its judgment dated January 7, 2025, noted:
1. The deceased's wishes were expressed unequivocally and documented.
2. The High Court's decision adequately considered the provisions of the Kerala Anatomy Act and the deceased’s intent to contribute to medical education.
3. The petitioners failed to provide any evidence countering the deceased's expressed desires.
The Bench concluded, "In the above circumstances, we see no reason to upset the view taken by the High Court in the impugned orders dated 18.12.2024."
With the dismissal of the petitions, the Court reaffirmed the High Court's decision, emphasizing the sanctity of the deceased's clearly articulated wishes. Pending applications related to the case were also disposed of.
Kerala High Court's Order
The Kerala High Court, while dismissing the Appeals filed by the daughters of CPI(M) veteran M.M. Lawrence against the Single Judge's decision permitting the donation of his body to the Ernakulam Government Medical College, had observed that it is "preferable to bring this matter to a quietus."
"Given the regrettable disagreement at the heart of the litigation, it is also preferable that quietus be reached in this case as soon as possible," the High Court had said.
The Division Bench had termed the Appeals as "regretful litigation." "These appeals, which we consider to be regretful litigation, are related to the disagreement among his son and daughters over late Mr.M.M. Lawrence's mortal remains, presently kept at the Medical College Hospital in Kalamassery," the High Court had said.
The Court had observed, "We see no nonconformities with the provisions of the Anatomy Act in the proceedings and conclusions by the 4th Respondent. The request conveyed by the 5th respondent broadly satisfies the requirement of the provisions of Section 4A(1) of the Act. The decision has been taken by the 4th Respondent on the basis of probabilities emerging in the facts and circumstances of the case. Appreciation of the same by the said respondent, as seen in the impugned order, cannot be termed as improper or perverse. The 4th respondent has applied mind to the relevant facts and circumstances and other aspects, including the significance of the pertinent provisions of the Anatomy Act. In these Appeals we are concerned with correctness of the order passed by the 4th Respondent and the learned Single Judge. Having considered the matter in totality we do not find that there is any case made out for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."
Cause Title: Asha Lawrance & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors. [Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 897-898/2025]
Appearance:-
Petitioner: Advocates R. Krishnaraj, Dr. Linto K.B, Tom Joseph (AOR)
Click here to read/download the Order
