Madras HC Rejects Son’s Plea For Second Post-Mortem Of Father After Alleged Workplace Fall, As First Exam Was Videographed And No Specific Deficiency Shown

The petitioner sought a direction under Article 226 to preserve his deceased father’s body and conduct a re-post-mortem examination by senior forensic experts under videography.

His father had allegedly sustained multiple injuries at his workplace on 24 October 2026, was taken to hospital, and died the following morning.

The petitioner questioned whether the injuries had been properly examined and documented; police had registered Crime No. 96 of 2026.

The prosecution submitted that a duly constituted team had conducted and videographed the post-mortem, and that the investigation remained ongoing.

The Court applied the principles that a re-post-mortem should not be ordered mechanically merely because a family member is dissatisfied with the initial examination; the Court should consider whether the body remains available, whether another examination is medically feasible, and whether sufficient grounds for it are shown.

A second examination ordinarily requires material indicating a genuine medical or procedural deficiency; mere suspicion or apprehension is insufficient.

The judgment cites no specific statute or precedent in support of these principles.

The Court found that the post-mortem had been conducted by a duly constituted team and that the entire examination had been videographed.

The petitioner identified no particular injury left unexamined, essential procedure omitted, or other specific deficiency in the examination.

The video record could assist in scrutinising the examination and, if a genuine discrepancy emerged, obtaining an independent medical opinion.

In the absence of supporting material, the Court found no basis to order another examination; it also considered indefinite retention of the body unwarranted.

It directed the Dean of Government Rajaji Hospital to secure and preserve the specified medical, post-mortem and forensic records, and the Superintendent of Police to ensure preservation of investigation materials and ascertain the circumstances in which the injuries were allegedly sustained.

The investigating agency was directed to investigate the cause of death from all relevant angles and preserve forensic samples; the body need not be retained indefinitely.