Above: Media crews outside the house where Additional DGP Rajendra Mishra has kept his father’s body.
In a bizarre case of an IPS officer keeping his father’s body “alive”, the MP High Court has said that in a liberal democracy, a man is permitted to act in any manner he pleases as long as it is not illegal
By Rakesh Dixit in Bhopal
“The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.” Quoting this famous line of French philosopher and novelist Albert Camus, a Madhya Pradesh High Court judge has allowed a senior IPS officer to keep “alive” his “ailing” octogenarian father whom a Bhopal hospital had declared dead on January 14.
Justice Atul Sreedharan in his 16-page order on June 22 observed: “India is a liberal democracy where a man is permitted to act in any manner he pleases, where such act is not prohibited under the law, irrespective of the fact that his act might be seen as galling by the majority.” With other striking observations in favour of an individual’s liberty, the judge quashed an MP Human Rights Commission (MPHRC) direction to the MP police to enter Additional DGP Rajendra Mishra’s home in Bhopal to ascertain if his father, Kulamani Mishra, was alive. The judgment is as remarkable as the case is bizarre.
It all began with a Bhopal newspaper report on February 14 claiming that foul smell from the “body” of Kulamani had caused two home guards on duty at his bungalow to fall sick. The report claimed that a private hospital had issued the death certificate after he had died on January 14, a day after receiving treatment for respiratory distress. Dr Ashwini Malhotra, who treated 84-year-old Kulamani, claimed that on January 13 the patient was admitted to Bansal Hospital for breathing difficulty. “He was diagnosed as suffering from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. As his condition deteriorated, the patient was put on ventilator support. His kidney had failed and he suffered cardiac arrest on January 14 evening. The body was handed over to his family along with a death certificate.”
The son admitted that Bansal Hospital had declared his father dead, but averred that he did not trust its declaration. Instead, the 55-year-old officer brought his father home and put him under the observation of the family’s ayurvedic practitioner, Radheshyam Shukla. Mishra also denied that the hospital had given him his father’s death certificate. What apparently fortified Mishra’s belief in his father being alive was his sister’s assertion that his pulse was running, albeit feebly. The sister has studied medicine abroad.
Meanwhile, Shukla, who was in Pachmarhi, rushed to Bhopal on reading about Kulamani’s demise in a newspaper. He too claimed that he was not dead. “When I examined the pulse, I found him to be critical but alive. A doctor was immediately called in and he too confirmed that,” Shukla told the media.
Meanwhile, the son said that his father who dotes on his grandchildren, responded whenever they called him. “We will try to keep him alive till the last breath.” He termed the report about foul smell emanating from the “body” as sensational and malicious. “Allopathy is not the last word in medicine. There are many things beyond science. My father is alive. He is under treatment. He practised yoga for more than six decades. He is in yognidra,” he reasoned. He said his father was responding to ayurvedic treatment and displayed signs of life. He appealed to the media to keep off his family’s private affair. When a media team visited his house, Mishra did not let them see the father.
However, the MPHRC did not buy the officer’s arguments. The Commission asked DGP VP Singh to ascertain if the death was natural, whether the body had been cremated and if scientific measures had been adopted to preserve the body and stop the foul smell. The Commission also appraised the chief secretary, principal secretary, home, and the Bhopal collector about its direction to the DGP. JP Rao, Registrar (law), MP Human Rights Commission, said the panel acted “within its jurisdiction and passed orders in accordance with the law”.
On February 23, a team of six doctors—three each from allopathy and ayurveda—was assigned to check on Mishra’s father, but the policemen posted at the bungalow refused to let them in. Later, Mishra did not allow a police team also to enter his home.
The Commission’s tough stand has put the police in a quandary as it doesn’t know how to examine the father.
In its response to the Commission’s order, the state police’s prosecution wing said that it would rather wait for the Court’s order and informed the Commission in a report that the team of doctors was not allowed entry. The report countered the Commission’s order, saying it was not clear under which section it was issued. Also, the Commission’s order did not specify which documents were to be seized from Mishra’s home.
The Commission again directed the DGP to send a senior officer to Mishra’s house, get him to comply with the panel’s previous order, and submit a reply by March 26. But Mishra stonewalled the Commission. Meanwhile, Mishra’s mother, Shashimani, moved the High Court against the rights panel’s order. She wrote to the Commission, claiming that her right to life, dignity and freedom were being violated by the panel. The son joined in the mother’s petition.
The petitioners disputed the death certificate and claimed that signs of life existed in the octogenarian. They attached a certificate by Shukla that he was treating Kulamani since January 15. They contended that if Kulamani had actually died on January 14, then nothing could have prevented the decomposition of the body and the stench of death would have pervaded the immediate neighbourhood. The son further argued in Court: “You don’t treat a dead body. You can’t live with a dead lizard or a rat for one hour… I don’t understand why outsiders are trying to interfere in a private affair. Treating my father is a fundamental right. I have not indulged in any crime or corruption.”
However, the MPHRC’s counsel argued that Kulamani was dead and his corpse had been kept unlawfully and would become a health hazard.
After hearing arguments, Justice Atul Sreedharan delivered his judgment on June 17. Quashing the MPHRC’s February 14 order, the single-judge bench held that it violated the petitioners’ right to privacy and thereby the fundamental right to life as enshrined under Article 21. The Court said it was undisputed that there were no complaints from the neighbours and that the petitioners were living in the same house.
“The conduct of the petitioners may be at divergence with the established social norm. It may be based upon a perception which may not find the approval of many yet the petitioners have the right to be different in thought, perception and action. Keeping the dead body of Kulamani Mishra (as is perceived and so stated on behalf of the Commission) at their residence may be revolting and abhorrent… and yet, under no circumstances can the State intervene and disturb the right to privacy of petitioners if the said act does not come within the ambit and scope of an offence or an illegality,” said the judgment.
Though Rajendra Mishra has claimed that his father is responding to treatment, he has not let anyone meet him except his mother, siblings and Shukla, who is said to be sourcing herbs from Pachmarhi for the treatment.