Ramkumar’s post-mortem deferred

The Madras High Court had a difference of opinion between two judges of a division bench while considering Ramkumar’s father plea that an independent forensic expert of his choice should be on board at the time of conduct of post mortem. The bench has ordered the state not to conduct autopsy till the decision is taken by the third judge. 

When the matter came up before a division bench comprising Justice Huluvadi G Ramesh and Justice S Vaidyanathan, lengthy arguments prevailed. While advocate Sankarasubbu appearing on behalf of Ramkumar’s father insisted that from the perspective of it being custodial death, it was important that an independent forensic expert is included since the government doctors can easily be influenced by the local police. 

The additional advocate general vehemently opposed the plea and insisted that the petitioner could avail himself of a government doctor of his choice and not from private service. He claimed that allowing this would have a bearing on the credibility of government doctors. 

However, with a difference of opinion arising between the judges, Justice Huluvadi G Ramesh, held that “while I am of the view that it would be advisable to allow such independent expert to be present during autopsy, as the same would be in no way prejudicial to the case of prosecution and would in effect fortify the stand of the State about the fairness. But, Justice Vaidyanathan, however, subscribes to the view of the AAG that independent person with forensic knowledge would, in fact, lead to creating a doubt in the minds of public about the arbitrary nature of the conduct of the state machinery and suggested induction of one more government doctor in the post-mortem panel instead of an independent person of the choice of the petitioner.” 

Based on this, the bench held that “Since there exists a difference of opinion, with regard to appointment of an independent person to be present during the autopsy, between us, the Registry is directed to place the matter before the Chief Justice for listing the matter before a third judge for his opinion on the above aspect.”