R.Ramu Thulasi v. The District Collector,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 04.09.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN W.P.Crl.(MD).No.1289 of 2025 R.Ramu Thulasi ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Collector, O/o. Collectorate, Madurai.

2.The Superintendent of Police, O/o. Superintendent of Police, Madurai District.

3.The Inspector of Police, Austinpatti Police Station, Madurai.

4.The Dean, Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, Madurai District.

...Respondents

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 to grant permission to conduct the postmortem of deceased G.Rama Krishnan as per the guidelines rendered in 2020 SCC Online Mad 1/6

5541 in Santhosh Vs. District Collector with the presence of the petitioner and consider the petitioner's representation dated 04.09.2025 within the time frame stipulated by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy Senior Counsel for M/s.Roy and Roy Associates For R-1 & R-4 : Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam Government Advocate For R-2 & R-3 : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

The Writ Petition prays for a direction to the respondents to conduct the postmortem of the deceased one G.Rama Krishnan, who was the husband of the petitioner, as per the guidelines issued by this Court in the case of Santhosh Vs. District Collector and others reported in 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 5541.

2. Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the police are now proceeding on the basis that the petitioner's husband had committed suicide by hanging; that however, the photographs and other circumstances would reveal that the initial presumption of suicide may not be justified and therefore, the postmortem must be conducted in a fair 2/6

manner. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that in similar circumstances, this Court had permitted a relative of the deceased to take pictures and videos of the body of the deceased as well as be present during the postmortem.

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, per contra, submitted that the directions issued by this Court in the case of Santhosh Vs. District Collector and others (cited supra) would not be applicable to the facts of the instant case, as in that case, the deceased had died during police custody and in such circumstances, an enquiry was conducted by the Judicial Magistrate and the directions issued therein were only with regard to the postmortem of deceased, who had died in police custody.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted that though the deceased died on 02.09.2025, the postmortem could not be conducted so far, since the petitioner, her family members and others are conducting a road roko and have created a law and order problem.

5. As rightly submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the directions issued by this Court in Santhosh's case (cited supra) cannot be issued 3/6

in all cases where there is suspicious death. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without going into the merits of the allegations made by the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the interest of justice would be met if the following directions are issued to the respondents while conducting postmortem:

(a) The petitioner's brother, one Mr.Thangapandian, shall be permitted to take pictures and videographs of the body of the deceased before the postmortem is conducted. The pictures and videographs so taken by the said Thangapandian shall not be circulated in any social media or in any form; (b) The respondents shall take videograph of the postmortem proceedings and keep the recording in safe custody. However, neither the petitioner nor any of her relatives shall be permitted to witness the conduct of postmortem. (c) The postmortem may be conducted by a team of two Doctors, who have a Master's degree in Forensic Medicine and attached to a Medical College and Hospital in the State. (This direction is as per the directions issued in Santhosh's case (cited supra)).

4/6

6. With the above observations, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

04.09.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No Lm Note : Issue order copy by 04.09.2025.

To 1.The District Collector, O/o. Collectorate, Madurai.

2.The Superintendent of Police, O/o. Superintendent of Police, Madurai District.

3.The Inspector of Police, Austinpatti Police Station, Madurai.

4.The Dean, Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, Madurai District.

5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

Lm W.P.Crl.(MD).No.1289 of 2025 04.09.2025 6/6