A deceased person’s body cannot be used as a means of protest, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court recently ruled [Selva Kumar Vs Chief Election Commissioner]..A Bench of Justices N Sathish Kumar and M Jothiraman expressed anguish over the continued delay in conducting last rites of a deceased youth since his body was being used for protest. “We express our anguish that the dead body is being used as a means of protest for days together.Providing a decent burial is also part of the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India."The Court made the observations while dismissing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed in connection with the alleged custodial death of a Scheduled Caste youth in Sivagangai districtThe Court ultimately held that the petition was a “publicity interest litigation", devoid of any merit and dismissed it..The PIL was filed by C Selvakumar, President of the Madurai District Devendrakula Velalar Uravinar Sangam, in connection with the death of Aakash, a 26-year-old Scheduled Caste youth from Krishnarayapuram village in Sivagangai district.According to the petition, Aakash allegedly died due to custodial torture while in judicial custody.The plea alleged that despite the seriousness of the allegations, no arrests were made and the investigation was proceeding in a “sluggish manner”.The delay in handing over the body had allegedly prevented the family from performing last rites, it was contended. The petitioner sought directions to arrest the accused police personnel under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and to ensure impartiality in the investigation by transferring local police officials.However, the State informed the Court that a separate petition was already pending before a single-judge of the High Court since March 9 and the single-judge had issued various directions and was actively monitoring the investigation.It was also pointed out that the case had been transferred to the CB-CID and relevant provisions, including those under the SC/ST Act, had already been invoked in the first information report (FIR). The Bench noted the above and also observed that the investigation was being supervised by a Deputy Superintendent of Police appointed for the purpose.In this backdrop, the Court found no justification to entertain a parallel PIL seeking similar relief..The Court also noted that the petitioner had sent a representation only by email on March 22, 2026 at 11:27 pm and filed the writ petition the very next day.It held that such haste coupled with the ongoing monitored probe indicated that the petition lacked bona fides and was filed for extraneous reasons.“The manner in which the present petition has been filed clearly indicates that it has been instituted for extraneous reasons....The present writ petition is nothing but a publicity interest litigation and is devoid of merits," the Court said..On the grievance that the family was unable to perform last rites, the Court clarified that the State has not prevented the same.“It is not the State or its officials who are preventing the conduct of the last rites.”The Court noted that continued protests had contributed to the delay and it was for the family members and others concerned to proceed with burial.Hence, it dismissed the plea..The petitioner was represented by advocate K Kannan..The Election Commission was represented by advocate Niranjan Rajagopal..The National Commission for Scheduled Castes and National Human Rights Commission were represented by Deputy Solicitor General K Govindarajan..The Tamil Nadu State Adi Dravidar Welfare Commission and District Collector were represented by Additional Advocate General M Ajmal Khan, assisted by Additional Government Pleader A Kannan..The Director General of Police and CB-CID were represented by Additional Public Prosecutor RM Anbunithi..[Read Judgment]
