Deceased Was A Person Of Indian Origin: Delhi HC Directs Authorities To Issue NOC To Transfer Mortal Remains From UK To Hyderabad

The Court held thus while noting that distinction in guidelines issued by various High Commission raises substantial concerns about uniformity of consular services being provided globally.

The Court was hearing a Writ Petition arising out of a communication from Indian High Commission in London refusing a Non-Objection Certificate (NOC) for transfer of mortal remains of Petitioner's son.

A Single Bench of Justice Sanjiv Narula observed, "The distinctions in guidelines issued by the High Commission of India in the United Kingdom, compared to those in Singapore and the USA, raise substantial concerns regarding the rationale and uniformity of consular services provided globally."

Adv Avinash Mathews appeared for the Petitioner and ASG Chetan Sharma for the Respondent.

Brief Facts-

In the present case, the petitioner was urgently seeking transfer of mortal remains of his late son who was an Indian citizen from London to Hyderabad. Despite being supported by the authorities in the U.K., the NOC was denied by the Indian High Commission in London on the ground that the petitioner's son was a British citizen at the time of his death, and did not possess an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card.

The Court observed, "..These divergences seemingly lack a clear justification, especially given that the criteria should uniformly reflect the principle of facilitating the dignified repatriation of individuals of Indian origin.”

The Court noted that the Indian High Commission in London mandates an OCI card for the repatriation of mortal remains, whereas other commissions do not impose such stringent requirements, suggesting arbitrariness in the application of these rules.

The Court further said, "Such an inconsistent application of policy, without transparent, rational justifications, contravene Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which ensures equality before the law and equal protection of the laws within the territory of India."

Consequently, the Court set aside the communication by the Indian High Commission in London holding that it unjustifiably discriminates against the Petitioner's rights to repatriate his son's remains in a respectful manner.

The Court disposed of the Writ Petition.

Cause Title: Anthony Watts v. Union of India & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:6196)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Adv. Avinash Mathews and Adv. Namrata Caleb

Respondents: ASG Chetan Sharma, CGSC Balendu Shekhar, G.P. Rajkumar Maurya, Adv. Amit Gupta, Adv. Saurabh Tripathi, Adv. Krishna Chaitanya, Adv. Shubham Sharma, Adv. Vikramaditya Singh.