Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India dealt with a letter addressed to the Chief Justice of India by Tushar Arun Gandhi, the great grandson of Mahatma Gandhi, seeking directions for the disposal of an urn purportedly containing the ashes of Mahatma Gandhi. The urn was lying in a sealed wooden box in a safe deposit locker of the State Bank of India, Cuttack, since 29 November 1950. The petitioner had written to the Chief Minister and Governor of Orissa and the Chairman of the State Bank of India, but received no positive response from the State authorities. The State Bank of India confirmed the deposit but stated that since the box was deposited by the State Government, only the Government could decide its disposal. The State of Orissa, however, denied that the box contained the ashes and refused to accept responsibility, leading the petitioner to move the Supreme Court. The Court treated the letter as a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950, and issued notices to the Union of India, State of Orissa, and State Bank of India. In its affidavit, the State Bank of India confirmed that a sealed wooden box marked 'Secretary HPM Orissa' containing an urn with the inscription 'it contains the ashes of Mahatma Gandhi' had been deposited on 29 November 1950 by the Secretary to the Chief Minister of Orissa. The State of Orissa, in its counter affidavit filed through an Additional Secretary in the Home Department, contended that there was no post of Secretary to the Chief Minister at that time, that the bank register did not bear the signature of the depositor, and that no Government record supported the deposit, leaving it to the Bank to dispose of the box as it deemed appropriate. The Court observed that the safe deposit receipt and the old bank entry made in the regular course of business need not be viewed with suspicion merely because of a designation discrepancy or absence of a Government note. It also found that no one except the petitioner had claimed the urn after more than four decades. The Court held that there was no harm in directing the disposal of the ashes as prayed, and accordingly directed that the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court would nominate the Registrar or a Senior Judicial Officer to take charge of the box in the presence of the petitioner and a high-level bank officer, draw up a memo about its physical condition, seal it, and then carry the ashes to a mutually agreed site on the River Ganges for disposal with reverence and dignity. The judicial officer was required to submit a report to the Supreme Court, which would be preserved as part of the record. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 32, Constitution of India, 1950 - A letter addressed to the Chief Justice of India was directed to be treated as a writ petition under Article 32 to decide the disposal of an urn purported to contain the ashes of Mahatma Gandhi. The Court issued notice to Union of India, State of Orissa, and State Bank of India and considered their affidavits. Held that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction under Article 32 to entertain public interest matters and give appropriate directions for the dignified disposal of the ashes when no other authority claimed responsibility and only the petitioner came forward. (Paras 1-4) B) Evidence - Presumption of Regularity of Bank Records - General evidentiary principle - The State Bank of India's Safe Deposit Register entry of 29 November 1950 showed deposit by 'Secretary HPM Orissa'; the State of Orissa raised doubt because no such post existed and government records lacked reference. The Court held that an old entry made in regular course of business should not be viewed with suspicion merely because the designation was 'Secretary' instead of 'Private Secretary' or because government records did not contain a note; it found no reason to doubt the entry's genuineness. (Paras 1-4) C) Religious and Customary Practice - Disposal of Ashes - Hindu Religious Practice - The petitioner, as great grandson of Mahatma Gandhi, sought to complete last rites according to Hindu religious practice by immersing the ashes in the River Ganges. The Court held that since the urn contained ashes and no one else claimed it after more than four decades, there was no harm in directing disposal as prayed. It directed the Registrar or a Senior Judicial Officer nominated by the Chief Justice of the High Court to take charge of the box, draw a memo, seal it, and then carry the ashes to a mutually agreed site on the Ganges for reverent disposal, with a report to the Supreme Court. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the urn said to contain the ashes of Mahatma Gandhi should be disposed of as prayed by the petitioner, and if so, in what manner, given the State of Orissa's refusal to accept responsibility and the absence of any other claimant.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court directed that the Hon'ble Chief Justice will nominate the Registrar of the High Court or a Senior Judicial Officer to take charge of the box containing the urn in the presence of the petitioner and a high level officer of the Bank after drawing up a memo regarding its physical condition and then seal the box and keep it in safe deposit; thereafter on the same day or any other appointed date fixed in consultation with the Bank official and the petitioner, they shall carry the ashes to a mutually agreed site on the River Ganges (the Ganga) for being disposed of with reverence and dignity. After disposal, the Registrar/Judicial Officer will submit a report to the Supreme Court addressed to the Registrar General, which will be included as part of the record and permanently preserved; a copy will be kept with the Bank for its record. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Article 32 of the Constitution of India
- 1950 empowers the Supreme Court to treat a letter as a writ petition and issue directions for dignified disposal of unclaimed ashes
- old bank entries made in regular course of business are presumed genuine unless contradicted by strong evidence
- discrepancy in designation is not sufficient to doubt genuineness of an old bank record
- religious sentiments of a descendant can be honoured when no other claimant exists after four decades.
