Madras High Court Refuses Permission To Exhume COVID Victim's Body For Reburial In Family Grave

The bench of Justice J Nisha Banu and Justice M Jothiraman observed that once a body is buried, it should not be disturbed as removing it might cause the "spread of harmful diseases". The court also noted that if such exhumation was allowed, it would set a precedent for all families, who have lost their closed ones and would endanger the larger public. It also noted that there was no specific provision of law in India relating to the exhumation of the body except Section 176(3) CrPCC.

“If this Court allows exhumation of the body, it will create a precedent for all those families, who lost their closed ones seeking for exhumation of the body irrespective of the fact that their faiths were buried/cremated at different places on account of their death due to COVID-19 infection which will result in public turmoil endangering the larger public, wherein, the whole world had already suffered the fatal waves of a global pandemic. That apart, “the departed soul requiescat in pace”...Therefore, the reasons assigned by the writ Court are not justifiable under law, since there is nothing to indicate that the deceased was not given a decent burial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India” the court said.

The court was hearing an appeal filed by the Greater Chennai Corporation against a single judge's order which allowed the request of a woman to exhume her husband's body, who had died due to Covid-19. The woman wanted to rebury him in their family graveyard at their native place in Kanyakumari district. He was buried in the Ambattur Corporation Graveyard in August 2020.

The Advocate General, appearing for the Corporation argued that there was no specific provision of law relating to exhumation of body except Section 176(3) of CrPC. The AG also submitted that the deceased was buried in August 2020, and more than 5 years have passed post burial. The AG submitted that even if an exhumation was to take place, the body was not in a deliverable state. The AG also submitted that if the body is exhumed, it would create a situation against the maintenance of law and order. It was submitted that the buried body will start to putrefy after a particular stage and removing it from the grave would cause the spread of harmful diseases.

The AG also argued that exhumation can be ordered only if there was a suspicion that the death was caused by poisoning, homicide, suspected homicide, disguised suicide or criminal abortions. It was submitted that if the State had performed the last rites of the deceased as per the religious beliefs, re-performing such ritual was not warranted one.

The woman contended that Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to have a decent burial which was not done in the present case. It was submitted that even as per guidelines issued by WHO and scientific reports, there was no evidence of persons becoming infected from exposure to people who died due to Covid-19. It was submitted that similar relief was granted in another case and denying it in the present case was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

The court noted that the issue of exhumation of buried body raises complex issues relating to the dignity and rights of the deceased as well as the rights of their families. The court added that the deceased has a fundamental rights of dignity including the right of a decent burial or cremation according to their religious rites. The court also noted that the family members of the deceased also have a right to perform the last rites and ensure a dignified burial/cremation.

At the same time, the court noted that the State is obliged to the welfare of the people and non-prevention of dangerous consequences of the body. The court also noted that once a body is buried after performing all rituals and prayers, the body should not be disturbed, unless it was shown that the disinterment is within the interest of justice.

The court agreed with the Corporation that the body was buried 5 years ago and even if it was to be exhumed, the body would not be in a deliverable state. The court noted that the deceased was buried after performing the rituals and prayers as per the religious rites , following which the woman had constructed the tomb for the deceased in the Corporation Graveyard.

Thus, noting that there was nothing to show that the deceased was not given a decent burial, the court was not inclined to allow the exhumation. The court thus allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the single judge.

Counsel for Appellant: Mr. P. S. Raman Advocate General for Mrs. P. T. Ramadevi

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Ravikumar Paul Senior Counsel for Mr. P. Ebenezer Paul, Mr. K. Tippusultan Special Government Pleader

Case Title: The Commissioner, GCC and Others v. S Jaya and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 256

Case No: W.A.No.3243 of 2024