Make your own free website on Tripod.com

sunbothj.jpg

New Delhi High Court Writ Petition 22 August 2007

Summary | PM Order | Photos | Legislation | Expert Reports | Links | High Court | HC 12/10/07 | Supreme Court | UK Police report

NCT Delhi Deputy Home Secretary issues the Order to be conducted on the body of baby Sunaina Chaudhari on 30 July 2007, but no post-mortem is conducted to date (25 December 2008)

Order from NCT Delhi for post mortem 30 July 2007
300707.jpg
No post-mortem done as of 26 December 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

 

W. P. (C) NO. 6179 OF 2007

 

(PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION)

 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

Public Interest Litigation

 

AND

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

 

AND

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

Seeking indulgence of this Hon’ble Court to undo injustice having been done to an Indian citizen abroad in regard to criminal investigation in the matter of death of his five months old daughter baby Sunaina Chaudhari under suspicious circumstances

 

AND

 

IN THE MATTER OF:                   

Violation of fundamental rights as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

 

AND

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

1.          Social Jurist, A Civil Rights Group

        Through Mr. Suraj Kumar, Coordinator

        478-479, Lawyers Chamber, Western Wing

        Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi-110054.

 

 

2.           Ms. Sadhna Chaudhari W/o Sh. Rajesh Kumar

UK Address: 27 Robinia Close,

Ilford, Essex, IG6 3AJ

presently residing at 36-D, Hazara Park

Gali No.5, Chandra Nagar (West)

Delhi-110051                                              ……          Petitioners

 

 

 

 

Versus

 

1.           Union of India

Through Secretary

Ministry of Home, South Block

New Delhi-110001

 

2.           The Secretary

Ministry of Health & Family Welfare

Government of India

Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi-110001

 

3.           Director General, Government of India,

Directorate General of Health Services,

Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi 110001

 

4.           Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Through Principal Secretary (Home)

Secretariat, IP Estate

New Delhi-110001      

 

5.           The Principal Secretary (Health)

Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Secretariat, IP Estate

New Delhi-110001

 

6.           The Commissioner of Police, Delhi

Police Headquarters, IP Estate,

New Delhi 110002                            ……       Respondents

 

 

To

 

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE SAID HIGH COURT

                    ------------------------------------------------------

 

 

The humble petition of the above named petitioners

 

 

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-

 

1.                     The petitioners by present Public Interest Litigation have highlighted the fact that Baby Sunaina Chaudhari was born on 25.05.2000 at King George Hospital, Ilford, Essex, UK and died at same place on 26.10.2000.  Sunaina was the first and only child to Sadhana Chaudhari and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, an Indian Citizen, conceived after five years of marriage in 1995.  Her parents have spent the last seven years trying to get the truth of how Sunaina died so suddenly and suspiciously in the UK when she was doing so well at five months of age.  It is submitted that baby Sunaina’s body has been officially repatriated to Delhi and it is currently being stored in a freezer at Penzy Morgan’s Mortuary, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi.  It is submitted that the parents of baby Sunaina being dissatisfied with the investigation having been conducted so far by the UK authorities, have appealed to the Govt. of India to provide appropriate assistance so that an official investigation into the death of baby Sunaina can be carried out, including a post-mortem by a board of reputable forensic pathologists, so that the true cause of their baby’s death could be revealed.  It is submitted that though the Govt. of India, by letter dated 26.4.2007 (Annexure K), initially acted upon the appeal by the parents and requested the Directorate General of Health Services, Govt. of India, to take necessary actions urgently for Govt. hospitals to carry out the post-mortem of the child, and in turn, the Directorate General of Health services, Govt of India, requested the Principal Secretary (Health), Govt. of NCT of Delhi to get the post-mortem of the child done at Maulana Azad Medical College (MAMC), but however, the Govt. of NCT of Delhi, vide letter dated 03.08.2007, declined the request for conducting the post-mortem on the body of baby Sunaina at MAMC.

 

2.                     The petitioners submit that what is revealed from the present case of baby Sunaina, is that, the Indian authorities in the past have never come across such a case and therefore, the same was never addressed by them, and so, it is the utmost need of the time that the Govt. of India should formulate legal guidelines to address this and other similar cases.  It is submitted that pending decision of the Govt. of India framing such guidelines, this Hon’ble Court may consider to frame guidelines in exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction and to direct the authorities to immediately conduct an investigation including post-mortem on the body of baby Sunaina so that the body of baby Sunaina may be laid to rest finally.  It is interesting to note here that in the UK, the authorities have detailed guidelines to deal with similar cases but unfortunately, in India, the authorities have no such statutory or other guidelines to deal with such cases.  Therefore, the issues arising out of the case of baby Sunaina are of great public importance and public interest. Hence the present PIL.

 

3.                     The Social Jurist, the petitioner No 1 herein, is an organization of lawyers and social activists dedicated to the causes of common man and more particularly of children. 

 

4.                     The petitioner No 2, Mrs Sadhana Chaudhari, mother of baby Sunaina, Indian born, shifted to UK when she was 7 years old and obtained British Citizenship.  Later on, in Delhi (India) in 1995, she married to Mr Rajesh Kumar, still an Indian Citizen.  It is submitted that Sadhana, along with her husband, relatives and friends, have throughout been campaigning in the UK as well as in India for justice to deceased baby Sunaina, as well as for justice to all those campaigning for the cause of justice.  It is also submitted that Sadhana had brought the body of baby Sunaina from the UK to India on 19.03.2007 and kept it at Penzy Morgan Mortuary, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi to date.  It is submitted that Mr Rajesh Kumar has written a letter dated 02.04.2007 to the Indian authorities requesting a full investigation into the death of his daughter baby Sunaina.  It is further submitted that Sadhana has been approaching the respondents-authorities over the last 4 months for investigation into the cause of death of deceased baby Sunaina.

 

5.                     The facts of the case so far as relevant for the purposes of present PIL are given in brief as under.

 

6.                     The petitioners submit that Baby Sunaina Chaudhari was born on 25/5/2000 at King George Hospital, Ilford, Essex, UK. The baby Sunaina was the only child to her parents.

 

7.                     The petitioners submit that the consultant doctors opined during the pregnancy that the child is suffering from diaphragmatic hernia and advised medical termination of pregnancy.  However, the parents refused and the child (baby Sunaina) was born alive through a normal delivery at full term.

 

8.                     The petitioners submit that baby Sunaina was operated upon for diaphragmatic hernia on 01/06/2000 in UK, made a remarkable recovery, and was discharged from the hospital. A pediatric consultant examined Baby Sunaina in a clinic and confirmed in a letter dated 18/9/2000 that Sunaina had made a remarkable recovery.  It is submitted that Baby Sunaina had gained weight from 1.92kg at birth to 4kg.  She was smiling and showing all signs of normality.

         

A true copy of the letter dated 18/9/2000 is enclosed hereto as Annexure-A.

 

9.                     The petitioners submit that on 26/09/2000, the baby Sunaina was wrongly prescribed a dose of 30mg ranitidine three times a day instead of 3mg three times a day by the family doctor. She received 8 doses of ten times each, making a total of an eighty times overdose, which caused increase in her oxygen requirement to eight fold from 0.25L/min to 2L/min.

 

10.                  The petitioners submit that on the early hours of 01/10/2000, Sunaina was admitted to King George hospital with critical blood oxygen level of 51% (normal is 99-100%). She was prescribed the same ten times overdose per dose of ranitidine on another 9 occasions, making a total of 170 times the normal recommended dose.  It is submitted that the night duty doctor immediately ordered the oxygen to be connected to the baby.

 

11.                  The petitioners submit that very strangely, on 02/10/2000, at about 10 am, a consultant ordered the discontinuation of oxygen. The mother of the baby, reconnected the oxygen just as she had been trained to do so by the nurses.  However, the same consultant this time ordered the removal of the oxygen machine so that the mother was not able to connect the oxygen.

 

12.                  The petitioners submit that consequently, on 05.10.2000, Baby Sunaina’s blood oxygen levels fell further to 37.4%, after Sunaina was left panting without oxygen.  It is submitted that Baby Sunaina’s heart was found enlarged on an x-ray on account of the lack of oxygen.

13.                  The petitioners submit that on 20/10/2000, the senior consultant Dr Robinson suspiciously requested a second opinion by fax from five Pediatric Consultants at Great Ormond Street hospital stating “it is in the best interests of Sunaina to be allowed to die”.  It is submitted that however, only two doctors out of the five gave their consent to that.  Thereafter, Dr Robinson held a meeting at the hospital and decided on an outcome plan to contact social workers to initiate court prceedings to procure ex-parte restriction order as well as judicial review for DNR from the Redbridge Family Proceedings Court for restraining the parents and relatives from the hospital where baby Sunaina was admitted. It is respectfully submitted that this action of the consultant Doctor to kill the healthy baby was totally unlawful and abuse of position.   It is submitted that according to the UK laws, in case of refusal of consent by parents, the Honourable High Court alone would have jurisdiction to grant a “Do Not Resuscitate” (or DNR), “allow to die” or “With-holding and withdrawing of active treatment”. In the present case, neither any consent from parents was obtained nor any DNR was obtained from the honourable High Court in the UK.

 

          A true copy of the fax message dated 20/10/2000 from Dr D Robinson and notes of a meeting dated 20/10/2000 from the medical file is enclosed hereto as Annexure-B & C respectively.

 

14.                  The petitioners submit that on 21/10/2000 Ms. Neelu Chaudhari, aunt of Baby Sunaina, a qualified pharmacist, immediately reported to Police that doctors were attempting to kill Baby Sunaina and that they had taken out an Ex-Parte stay order against the parents to end Sunaina’s life in hospital, whilst Sunaina was forcibly isolated from her parent’s. 

 

15.                  The petitioners submit that on knowing this, Baby Sunaina’s parents made application in the same Redbridge Family Proceedings Court to recall the Protection Order dated 20/10/2000 and the matter was fixed for hearing on 26.10.2000 at 10 am.

 

          A true copy of the said Protection Order dated 20/10/2000 is enclosed hereto as Annexure-D.

 

16.                  The petitioners submit that on 25/10/2000, Baby Sunaina was suspiciously prescribed and administered first dose of Potassium Chloride( KCL) at 10 p.m., despite the fact that her potassium level was normal (3.3). It is respectfully submitted that the Potassium Chloride is usually injected to death row convicts in the developed countries like USA etc. for Executions. It is also submitted that, when KCL is injected at high speed, it causes the heart to stop suddenly.

 

17.                  The petitioners submit that on 26/10/2000 at about 9.30.a.m., when the parents and aunt Neelu were in the court to try to obtain vacation of the aforesaid Protection Order, Dr Robinson pleaded with the parents not to proceed with the application to recall and promised to discharge the baby in a few days. However, when the parents asked him to put this in writing, he refused to do so. It is submitted that Ms. Neelu saw Dr Robinson leaving the side room on several occasions between 9.30am and 10.30am before the start of court proceedings. At 11.05 am, the baby’s parents were called into a side-room and told by Dr Robinson that Baby Sunaina had died at the hospital.

 

18.                  The petitioners submit that under very strange circumstances and conditions, Baby Sunaina was declared dead in the medical file on 26/10/2000 at 11.10 am. It is submitted that on return from court to the hospital, when the family members confronted with the attending doctor, Dr. Junaid Solebo, he was unable to explain how the child died, but confirmed that he had received telephonic instructions from Dr Robinson to attend to baby Sunaina in her cubicle in another ward of the hospital.  Dr Solebo also told the family that he decided to try to bleed Sunaina, to find a vein to insert a cannula and to take blood samples, as well as to start antibiotics, but during repeated needle puncturing Sunaina suddenly died. Dr Solebo further disclosed that he had taken the blood sample of the Baby and also tried to resuscitate the child but he failed.  It is respectfully submitted that what Dr Junaid Solebo told the parents was contradictory to the medical record. 

 

          A true copy of the death certificate dated 11.10.2002 is enclosed hereto as Annexure-E.

 

19.                  The petitioners submit that the drug administration chart of 26/10/2000 shows that hurriedly, three more doses of Potassium Chloride were given to the baby by 10am.  Two of these signatures were tampered with on the drug chart.  One signature is signed in the box for 13.00hrs by male Nurse Christopher McMenamin on 26/10/2000, two hours after death, and the other by Dr Thomas Rager at 22.00hrs on 26/10/2000, 11 hours after death.  Both these doses must have been given immediately before death. The word “KCL”, the chemical name for potassium chloride, prescribed by Dr Gavel, was later on scored out in the medical file. 

 

20.                    The petitioners submit that the parents and relatives of the Baby Sunaina were suspecting a foul play as there were three finger marks on Baby Sunaina’s left cheek, a thumb print on her right cheek, and marks as if a circular object had been placed over Sunaina’s mouth and pressed down by a hand. An injection mark was also visible on her neck etc. It is submitted that Dr Junaid Solebo confirmed in the medical file that Sunaina was given bag and mask to give her oxygen. It is submitted that being suspicious about the death of the Baby, the family had made allegations of murder to the Police, who got the first post-mortem done on Sunaina on 30/10/2000. 

 

          True copies of the first post mortem report dated 14/12/2000, second post mortem report dated 01.02.2001 are enclosed hereto as Annexures-F & G respectively.

 

21.               The petitioner submit that the said post-mortems were in fact a farce as no attempt was made in spite of pointing out suspicion specifically about the manner of death. The blood sample and viscera samples were not investigated.  Not only this, no chromosome test, no cytogenetics report, no report from toxicology was taken to justify the cause of death. The possibility that the mask was used to suffocate Sunaina has not been explored in the post-mortems. Similarly, no video recording of post-mortems was done. 

 

22.               The petitioners submit that on 11/12/2000, Ms. Neelu Chaudhari, a qualified pharmacist, sent complaints to police officers with her expert report for further investigation.  In Jan 2001, after receiving a copy of post-mortem report, the family also requested for second post-mortem from police on the basis that the missing tests, namely, cytogenetics report, chromosome photographs, were not done and therefore, the so called “natural causes” result was incorrect and fabricated.  It is submitted that the police officials promised to conduct the second post-mortem to get the missing and other tests done and also video recording. That despite all the assurances, though the second post-mortem was conducted on 31/01/2001, but still, the missing tests as stated above were not done.  It is respectfully submitted that these omissions and commissions of the authorities further cemented the doubts that the baby Sunaina did not die a natural death as alleged in the post-mortem reports.

 

          Copy of expert report dated 24.03.2004 is enclosed hereto as Annexure-H.

 

23.               The petitioners submit that without following the correct procedure for investigating the evidence, a jury inquest was held on 11.9.2001. It is respectfully submitted that holding an inquest by a jury has no legal consequence unless all routine, necessary and missing tests from the post-mortem examination have been completed and considered.  It is further submitted that the jury was completely misled by the UK authorities in respect of ranitidine and potassium chloride drug overdoses given to baby Sunaina at the hospital where she died.  It is respectfully submitted that the gruesome evidence that all the baby’s internal organs, (including the eyes and brain) were removed from the baby’s body four days before the first post-mortem, was not investigated.  The evidence that the body was not in-tact at the time of the first post-mortem, was not investigated.  The eyeballs are required for the vitreous toxicological examination to determine the levels of drugs in the baby’s body at the time of death.  The vitreous test is routinely done during post-mortems, yet it was not done on the eyes of baby Sunaina.  Most of the witnesses called by Coroner Stearns were from King George Hospital. Even the corner refused to summon Ms. Neelu, a pharmacist, to give evidence during Inquest proceedings. The needle mark on the baby’s neck was neither noted in the two post-mortems, nor considered in the inquest as a possible cause of death. Baby Sunaina’s milk particles found in her lungs in the post-mortem were not considered as contributing to her death. Dissatisfied with the inquest, the family made several requests to the Coroner and Police for proper investigations to find out the real cause of her death. However, all their appeals were turned down.  Over the last six years, the family made several requests from time to time to view the body, but the mortuary where the body had been stored was demolished and the body moved to a new location without any information to the family. 

 

24.               The petitioners submit that on 20.02.2007, the parents of Baby Sunaina, to their shock, received orders, from London Borough of Redbridge, that if parents did not make funeral arrangements for Baby Sunaina body in 28 days, they would destroy the baby’s body. 

 

25.               The petitioners submit that due to the aforementioned threat of destroying the baby’s body, the family had no choice but to take the body of baby Sunaina to Delhi (India) for pursuing their cause further.  It is submitted that baby Sunaina’s body was officially brought from UK to India by the mother on 19.3.2007, together with all the relevant forms having been completed (embalming Certificate, Free from Infection, and Coroner’s release form completed).  It is submitted that the after arrival at New Delhi (India), baby Sunaina’s body was stored in a private mortuary, namely Penzy Morgans, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi, where it is still lying.  On 02.04.2007, Sunaina’s father, Rajesh Kumar (an Indian Citizen), wrote a letter to Govt of India, Ministry of Health etc. seeking investigation into the death of his baby daughter Sunaina.  This letter was followed by a letter dated 21.04.2007, by Sunaina’s mother addressed to the Hon’ble Prime-Minister of India again requesting for a full investigation into her baby’s death to reveal the truth. 

 

          True copies of the said letters dated 02/04/2207 and 21.4.2007 are enclosed hereto as Annexures-I & J.

 

26.               The petitioners submit that thereafter, the Joint Secretary (Consular) Ministry of External Affairs, Govt. of India, wrote a letter dated 26.4.2007, to the Director General of Health Services (DGHS), Govt. of India, requesting him to take necessary action urgently for authorizing a Govt. hospital to carry out the post mortem of the child Sunaina Chaudhari.  It is submitted that the DGHS by letter dated 26.4.2007, requested the Principal Secretary (Health), Govt. of NCT Delhi, to get the post mortem of baby Sunaina done at Maulana Azad Medical College (MAMC).

 

          True copies of the said letters dated 26.4.2007 are enclosed hereto as Annexures-K & L respectively

 

27.               The petitioners submit that thereafter, the Spl Secretary (H&FW), Govt. of NCT Delhi, wrote a letter dated  16.5.2007, to the DGHS requesting to guide the State Govt. on this issue so that a uniform policy can be followed by all the hospitals in similar circumstances.  Since the said letter dated 16.5.2007, is very relevant for the purposes of present PIL, the same is therefore, reproduced as under:-

 

“Dear Dr Srivastava,

Please refer to your DO letter No.2373/DGHS/2007 dated 26th April 2007, regarding representation of Ms Sadhana Chaudhari a British Citizen regarding holding of post-mortem on the body of baby Sunaina Chaudhari who had expired at King George Hospital, UK on 26.10.2000.

 

The request of Ms Chaudhari has been got examined in consultation with the Department of Law, Justice & Legislative Affairs of the Government of NCT of Delhi, who have advised this Department that in the absence of a request from the Court or authority in a country or place outside India competent to issue a letter of request for undertaking investigation of crimes in accordance with Section 166B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the post-mortem, if conducted in India on the request of the deceased would not form part of the investigation of alleged offence committed in UK and the evidence so collected may or may not be admissible in and before the British Courts. 

 

So far we have not dealt with any case of similar nature.  As such we are not able to decide the desirability of ordering post-mortem on bodies brought to India from abroad.

 

Although the State i.e. the Central Government does seem to have inherent powers to order investigations, including the conducting of post mortem, yet the inherent discretionary powers of the State must be used with utmost care, caution and in accordance with established public policy.  I am directed to seek formal views of Central Govt on this issue.  In arriving at decision you may like to consider implications of the decision on similar requests that are being received by State Government. 

 

You are therefore requested to guide the State Government on this issue so that a uniform policy can be followed by all the hospitals in similar circumstances. 

 

With regards,

     Yours sincerely,

Sd/-

(K.S.Wahi)

 

Dr R.K. Shrivastava,

Director General

Government of India,

Directorate General of Health Services,

Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi”.

 

          A true copy of the said letter dated 16.5.2007 is enclosed hereto as Annexure-M.

 

28.               The petitioners submit that thereafter, Sunaina’s mother submitted a representation dated 07.6.2007, to the Hon’ble President of India explaining therein the difficulties being faced by the family in not getting any substantial action on the part of the Indian authorities and requesting help.  It is submitted that, thereafter, the Secretary to the President of India, by letter dated 29.6.2007, informed the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, that the President was wondering if anything could be done in the matter and he was keen to know what could be done.

 

          True copies of the aforesaid letters dated 7.6.2007 and 29.6.2007 are enclosed hereto as Annexures-N & O respectively.

 

29.               The petitioners submit that, thereafter, the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, by letter dated 25.7.2007, requested the Principal Secretary (Home), Govt. of NCT of Delhi, to look into the matter personally.  It is submitted that, thereafter, the Deputy Secretary (Home), Govt. of NCT of Delhi, requested the Spl Secretary (H&FW), Govt. of NCT of Delhi, to take appropriate action in the matter.

 

          True copies of the aforesaid letters dated 25.7.2007 and 30.7.2007, are enclosed hereto as Annexures-P&Q respectively.

 

30.               The petitioners submit that, thereafter, Mrs Sadhana Chaudhari, mother of deceased Sunaina, received a letter dated 3.8.2007, from Spl. Secretary (H&FW), Govt. of NCT of Delhi, whereby she was informed that it was not possible to accede to her request for conduct of post-mortem on the body of baby Sunaina Chaudhari at Maulana Azad Medical College.  Since the said letter dated 3.8.2007, is important, hence, the same is reproduced as under:-

“To

 

Ms Sadhana Chaudhari

B-61 Inder Puri

Delhi-12

 

Madam,

 

Please refer to your letter dated 5th June, 2007 & 27th July, 2007 addressed to the Chief Minister, Delhi and letter dated 4th June 2007 addressed to Minister of Health, Delhi regarding post-mortem arrangements for baby Sunaina Chaudhari.

 

From the documents on record, it transpires that the death of baby Sunaina occurred in the United Kingdom on October 26th, 2000.  In the normal course, any criminal investigation or redressal of grievances has to be undertaken by the relevant authorities in the United Kingdom, where the death has occurred and it cannot be undertaken in India.  In respect of such incidents, investigation in India can only be undertaken under Section 166(B) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.  The scope of such investigation is confined to the examination of any person or production of any document or thing in relation to an offence under investigation in the foreign country or place.

 

Under these circumstances, it is not possible to accede to your request for conduct of a Postmortem on the body of baby Sunaina Chaudhari at Maulana Azad Medical College, Delhi.

 

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-

(N. Balachandran)

Spl Secretary (H&FW)”

 

          A true copy of the said letter dated 3.8.2007 is enclosed hereto as Annexure-R.

 

31.               The petitioners submit that even according to Govt. of India baby Sunaina’s case happens to be the first of its own kind and there was no previous occasion for the Indian authorities to have dealt with the same.  It is submitted that the Spl. Secretary (H&FW), Govt. of NCT of Delhi, in the letter dated 16.5.2007, (ANNEXURE-M), addressed to DGHS, has stated that so far they have not dealt with any case of similar nature and as such they were not able to decide the desirability of ordering post-mortem on bodies brought to India from abroad and requested the DGHS to guide the State Govt. on this issue so that a uniform policy can be followed by all the hospitals in similar circumstances.  It is submitted that in spite of the said request, the DGHS or any other competent authority, till date, has not formulated any uniform policy or guidelines or regulations to deal with matters like that of baby Sunaina.  It is submitted that the authorities are just abdicating their responsibilities.

 

32.               The petitioners submit that the request of the family of baby Sunaina for investigation including post-mortem cannot be rejected merely because of the fact that the Govt. of India or the State Govt. has not so far formulated any policy or framed regulations in this regard. 

 

33.               The petitioners submit that in the United Kingdom, there exists a detailed reference guide compiled by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), referring to the legislation, procedures and protocols relating to issues when deaths occur abroad (outside the United Kingdom).  It is submitted, that, in terms of the aforesaid detailed reference guide, there are provisions for investigating deaths by the United Kingdom authorities which have occurred outside the United Kingdom, on amongst other grounds that the family of the deceased was not satisfied with the investigation outside the United Kingdom and had brought the body of the deceased person to the United Kingdom for further investigation. 

 

          A true copy of the said reference guide is enclosed hereto as Annexure-S.

 

34.               The petitioners submit that the Govt. of India is required to frame laws, rules, regulations, policy framework or guidelines to deal with such cases, and till the same are framed, the Govt. of India may consider, adopting and applying the aforementioned reference guide (ANNEXURE-S) and decide the case of deceased baby Sunaina accordingly.

 

35.               The petitioners submit that there has been widespread international press and media attention on the case and a poll of the Indian viewers of the programmes found the majority of the Indian viewers were in support of baby Sunaina’s family’s campaign for truth in India. 

 

          Copies of some of the press publications   reports are enclosed hereto as Annexure-T collectively.

 

36.               The petitioners submit that they have not filed any similar petition either in the Hon’ble Supreme Court or in any High Court in India.

 

37.               The petitioners submit that they have no other efficacious alternative remedy except to approach this Hon’ble Court by way of present PIL.

 

38.               In the premise aforesaid, the petitioners most humbly pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to :-

 

(a)         issue appropriate writ, orders or directions to the Respondents authorities to forthwith frame appropriate rules, regulations, policy or guidelines for investigations in India, where deaths have occurred outside India;

 

(b)         issue appropriate writ, orders or directions to the Respondents authorities to forthwith undertake a full investigation into the death of baby Sunaina Chaudhari, including a full post-mortem on the body of baby Sunaina presently stored at Penzy Morgans Mortuary, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi

 

(c)         issue any further order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may in the facts and circumstances deem fit and proper in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents authorities and; 

 

(d)     allow the present PIL with costs.      

 

         

 

 

 

                                               (ASHOK AGARWAL &  P.K.SHARMA)

                                          ADVOCATES FOR THE PETITIONERS

                                        483, LAWYERS CHAMBERS, BLOCK-II,                                                              DELHI HIGH COURT,                                                                          NEW DELHI-110003

New Delhi                                                                    PH. 65488453

DATED: 20.08.2007