Kerala High Court dismisses challenge to donation of body of MM Lawrence to medical college

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday upheld a single-judge's decision to allow the donation of late CPI(M) leader MM Lawrence's body to the Ernakulam Medical College [Asha Lawrence v. State of Kerala & Ors.].A Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S Manu dismissed an appeal filed by Lawrence's daughter Asha Lawrence, who opposed the donation of her father's body to the medical college as she wished to hold a Christian burial for him..Amid conflicting familial and legal claims, single-judge Justice VG Arun had earlier held that donation of body of MM Lawrence for medical research was lawful and in compliance with the Kerala Anatomy Act.Asha Lawrence challenged this verdict before the Division Bench by filing an appeal, which was dismissed today by the Division Bench..The Division Bench began its judgement with a poignant quote from William Ernest Henley’s poem, Invictus, which read:"I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul"The Court made the reference to comment on the importance of personal autonomy. It added that sometimes a person's choices leave an impact even after their death, as was the case in the instant matter. .The case at hand concerned a dispute over whether MM Lawrence had given legal consent to donate his body for medical research after his death. His daughter Asha Lawrence approached the High Court with a petition opposing the donation shortly after her father's death on September 21, arguing that there was no unequivocal consent from MM Lawrence for donating his body for medical purposes.She claimed the decision to donate was politically influenced and was made by her siblings and the CPI(M). She sought to bury his body in accordance with Christian rites, citing her father’s religious ties despite his communist ideology.On September 23, the High Court disposed of her first plea by directing the principal of the Ernakulam Medical College to consider her objections.Subsequently, an advisory committee formed by the principal reviewed the matter and validated a body donation consent form allegedly signed by MM Lawrence, in line with Section 4(1) (taking possession of dead bodies with the prior consent of the deceased persons) of the Kerala Anatomy Act. This decision granted legal possession of the body to his son ML Sajeevan, who supported the donation..Asha then filed a second petition challenging the authority of the principal to constitute the advisory committee, claiming procedural lapses and violations of natural justice. She argued that the hearings were conducted unfairly, noting that her sister, Sujatha Boban, had withdrawn her consent for the body donation, which was overlooked. However, on October 23, the single-judge dismissed her petition and upheld the donation..This was then challenged by Asha Lawrence before the Division Bench, where she contended that the single-judge failed to address several key arguments.Her sister Sujatha Boban also filed an appeal challenging the decision to hand-over her father's body.Asha's counsel argued that the consent form relied upon to validate the donation did not meet statutory requirements, and the principal of the medical college should have returned the body due to the ongoing dispute.The college principal countered that a committee of specialists had considered all objections and determined that the donation was consistent with MM Lawrence's wishes, as claimed by some of his children.The Division Bench initially tried to resolve the dispute by referring the case to mediation, but the parties could not reach an agreement.Consequently, the Court proceeded to examine the appeal on merits and dismissed it today..The Court was tasked with the interpretation of Section 4A (taking possession of dead bodies with the prior consent of deceased persons) of the Kerala Anatomy Act, which governs the donation of bodies for medical studies.Asha's counsel had contended that a request for body donation under the provision had to be made by the deceased person directly to an authorized officer during their last illness, either in writing or orally in the presence of two or more individuals..However, the Court concluded that the law did not require the person to approach the authorised officer directly, holding that an oral request may be made otherwise as well in the presence of witnesses. It added that a request by a person to donate their body would not be invalidated merely on account of objection by family members, without evidence to show that the person had alternative wishes. "Requirement of Section 4A(1) is 'unequivocal request; by the person. Intention of the expression, obviously, is to ensure that the person who makes the request should be clear in his mind about providing his body and the request should be unmistakable. Disputing of it by others can have no impact particularly when it is without even a claim regarding any other wish expressed by the deceased," the Court said..Coming to the present case, the Court also noted that MM Lawrence's son, Sajeevan, had been taking care of his father during his final years, and that Lawrence had clearly communicated his wish to donate his body for science. The Court concluded that the provisions of Section 4A were satisfied and that the donation was valid. It, therefore, dismissed the appeal. .[Read Judgement]