Why Did the Madras HC Allow Karunanidhi’s Burial at Marina?

The Madras HC found that there were no reasons to deny Kalaignar’s burial and directed the govt to make arrangements

The late M Karunanidhi and the Madras High Court.

(Photo: Shruti Mathur/The Quint)

The Madras High Court on Wednesday, 8 August, allowed the burial of former Chief Minister and DMK supremo Karunanidhi at Marina beach, ending a controversy which had erupted after the death of the veteran leader the previous day.

Acting Chief Justice HG Ramesh and Justice SS Sundar held that there was no legal impediment to allowing the interment, and directed the Tamil Nadu government to provide a place for burial within the precincts of the Anna Memorial (where Karunanidhi’s mentor Annadurai is buried).

On Tuesday, the DMK had moved the high court after the Tamil Nadu government refused permission to bury the late leader at Marina beach, the resting place of Dravidian political stalwarts MGR, Annadurai and Jayalalithaa. The Opposition party filed a writ petition asking the court to direct the government to allow the burial.

Chief Minister E Palaniswami had cited a number of ongoing cases at the high court where it was being argued that no memorials should be allowed at Marina (and that the existing memorials should be shifted), and instead suggested that the veteran leader could be interred at Gandhi Mandapam.

How did the High Court Arrive at its Decision?

• The judges started hearing the matter in a special midnight hearing, taking into account the DMK’s plea that delaying the hearing might lead to violence in the state because of high emotions.
• The hearing was pushed to Wednesday morning to allow the Tamil Nadu government to prepare a proper reply.
• There were a total of four PILs which were ongoing before the high court arguing against burials/cremations and memorials at Marina beach.
• Three of the four petitioners – PMK’s Balu, and advocates DK Doraiswamy and V Gandhimathi – agreed to withdraw their PILs. The fourth, social activist Traffic Ramaswamy, had not agreed to withdraw his case, but on Wednesday morning told the court that he had no objection to Karunanidhi’s burial at Marina.
• In light of these developments, the Madras High Court dismissed all the PILs, which meant there were no more legal roadblocks to allowing Karunanidhi’s burial at Marina.
• As a result, the judges allowed the DMK’s petition, and passed directions for the authorities to provide a burial place. The full order with the judges’ views on the other arguments raised is yet to be made public.

Operative portion of Madras HC order

What Did the AIADMK Government Say?

• The Tamil Nadu government (represented by senior advocate CS Vaidyanathan) had opposed the DMK’s petition, arguing that there was nothing wrong with its rejection of the request to bury Karunanidhi at Marina.
• They argued that according to protocol, burial in a place like Marina was only allowed for sitting chief ministers – which was why Jayalalithaa had been laid to rest there – and so there was no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution (equal treatment for all).
• According to them, precedent for this was set by Karunanidhi himself when he was chief minister in not allotting space for former Chief Ministers K Kamaraj and Rajagopalachari. [Note: a fact-check of this claim can be read here]
• The government also took exception to the withdrawal of all the PILs, arguing that the whole thing seemed stage-managed.
• Finally, the government argued that there was no scope for the high court to issue a “mandamus” (the legal term for the direction asked for), since nobody’s rights had been violated, or any duty of the government ignored. In any case, the government had only issued a press release on the issue – no mandamus can be issued against this.
• After the verdict was announced, the government was reportedly considering appealing the order before the Supreme Court, but eventually decided against this.

What Had the DMK Argued?

• The DMK (represented by senior advocate P Wilson) had argued that Karunanidhi’s rights under Article 21 of the Constitution were being violated by the government’s refusal. According to them, the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to dignity and a decent burial.
• Given ‘Kalaignar’ Karunanidhi’s stature as a leader of the Dravidian movement, he deserved to be buried alongside his mentors at the Marina which has come to represent ground for the resting place of Dravidian leaders, they argued.
• Since Jayalalithaa had been buried at Marina (despite PILs against memorials on the beach), the DMK argued that the government was violating Article 14 (the right to equal treatment) by refusing to bury Karunanidhi there.
• Senior advocate Veerkatirvan also argued that the protocol referred to by the government had nothing to do with burials, and instead dealt with state mourning and flag hoisting.
• Lastly, with the withdrawal of the PILs, there was no legal reason to deny the burial. The area within which the DMK sought to bury Karunanidhi is designated as a cremation ground, so there should be no objections under civic rules, the Opposition had argued.