In a disturbing scene at the Madhya Pradesh Courtroom last week, a man tried to gain sympathy through a shocking act. The petitioner brought the miscarriage foetus to the court and showed it to the bench, in order to show the gravity of suffering by his family. The bench presided over by Justice Himanshu Joshi, condemned the act, terming it “highly objectionable” and inappropriate for judicial proceedings.

 What did the petitioner claim?

The petitioner claimed his family had been harassed for years for exposing financial irregularities amounting to over Rs 200 crore at Maruti Suzuki Ltd. He stated that despite reaching out to various authorities, including the President of India, for years, no strict action was taken. He also claimed his family was the victim of a deadly car attack that led to his wife’s miscarriage. While the petitioner lacked supporting documents, he made a desperate attempt by bringing the foetus into court. The initial petition sought euthanasia, but it was later altered to a request for compensation for the physical, emotional, and financial distress.

After hearing the petition, the court did not find it substantial. Justice Joshi observed that the allegations are grave, but they lack supporting credible evidence. Earlier, the petitioner had approached the court with a similar petition but withdrew it to revise it; the court noticed this pattern. Court said the petition lacked bona fide intent.

Failed to pursue appropriate legal remedies

The bench headed by Justice Himanshu Joshi pointed out that the petitioner has not followed the appropriate legal remedies that is mentioned under Section 175(3) of the BNSS (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita), 2023.

Under the provision, the magistrate can order an investigation or even ask the police to register the First Information Report. Usually in such cases, the petitioner must follow this route, but instead, the petitioner followed the writ jurisdiction of the HC.

Court condemned the act of bringing foetus to courtroom

The court condemned the manner in which the petitioner tried to make an emotional display by bringing the foetus into court. The bench emphasised that justice is always backed by legally admissible material and proof, not by dramatic gestures. Court even warned the petitioner that bringing the foetus to the courtroom could have legal implications. The court even mentioned that the petitioner has violated the Biomedical Waste Management Rules, 2016, which mandate strict protocols for disposal and handling of human remains. Additionally, such an act can be considered an offence under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, as it constitutes indignity towards a human corpse.

Final order of court

The court dismissed the petition and directed the petitioner to pursue appropriate legal channels. The court acknowledged the personal grief involved but stated that emotions should be set aside, the rule of law must prevail, and justice cannot be secured through spectacle but only through evidence.