Inhuman act: Students in Bhubaneswar protest against the killing of tribals in Kalinganagar

Forensic science, many would agree, is a rather enigmatic subject that begins with death and seeks to make dead men tell tales. It’s a difficult job, no doubt. But prosectors ? personnel who conduct autopsies ? in Orissa have apparently found an easier way to pull it off. If the dead can’t be made to speak, turn to their palms for answers.

In Orissa last week, the bodies of five tribals ? killed in police firing while protesting at the site of a proposed steel plant in Kalinganagar ? were mutilated during autopsy. The bodies were returned to their families but their palms had been chopped off and retained for purposes of future identification. The act was interpreted by local tribals as payback by the police who wanted to avenge the death of one of their colleagues killed during the clashes.

The incident kicked up a domestic furore. And the human rights lobby swung into action, demanding swift redressal against the perpetrators of what was criticised by many as a gross violation of human rights. The Orissa police began to pass the buck. After having said that their rule book required palms of corpses to be retained for identification, they went on to blame the doctors who conducted the autopsies, saying that they had dismembered the bodies out of their own will.

It will be a while before things get sorted out. But what is perhaps the need of the hour is to take a deeper look into the regulations under which autopsies are conducted in India.

The supreme guideline to this effect is the Model Autopsy Protocol, included in the UN Manual on the effective prevention and investigation of extra-legal, arbitrary and summary executions (1991). First adopted by the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations in a 1989 resolution, the manual lists several checkpoints that need to be followed while investigating executions such as assassinations, deaths resulting from use of excessive force by law enforcement personnel and acts of genocide.

The detailed manual lays down elaborate guidelines regarding key issues related to autopsies, such as scene investigation, identification, photography of objects and findings, examination of the body, collection of specimens, toxicologic tests and retention of evidence. But while the protocol recommends thorough autopsies in investigating controversial deaths, it does not endorse the mutilation of a body either for identification or for collecting evidence.

Under normal circumstances, the manual prescribes routine collection of 150g each of the liver and the kidney. In cases where the presence of drugs or toxins is suspected, it says that the brain, hair and adipose tissue may be additionally saved. “After the autopsy, all unretained organs should be replaced in the body, and the body should be well embalmed to facilitate a second autopsy in case one is desired at some future point,” it states.

These are norms, human right bodies stress, that India should follow. “The UN Protocol is what is called a customary international law,” explains Ravi Nair, executive director of the Delhi-based South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre (SAHRDC), a body which is part of the Asia Pacific Human Rights Network. “It is universally applicable, and does not need any ratification from states to be implemented. Hence, all countries are subject to its regulations.” Nair says that SAHRDC has already shot off letters to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and the Medical Council of India (MCI), urging the authorities to look into the matter.

But things don’t appear all that simple when one considers that all Indian states, the UN Protocol notwithstanding, have their own sets of guidelines for conducting a post mortem. “And an autopsy performed in a certain state will only be governed by the guidelines formulated by that particular state,” says an official at the MCI.

Autopsies in Delhi, for example, are carried out according to a set of medico-legal procedures laid down in 1983 by the ministry of health and family welfare for the capital. “And the regulations do allow prosectors to retain the terminal portions of fingers for identification in certain cases,” says a doctor at the department of forensic medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences. “That’s not to say, however, that a whole palm can be chopped off.”

But if the Orissa police are to be believed, their rule book allows just that. “We suspect it to be a very old manual, dating back to the days when body parts were stored in formaldehyde for future reference,” says Nair. “But why it should be followed in the age of DNA fingerprinting is the question.”

The answer to Nair’s question is simple. India is yet to familiarise itself with the process of a routine updating of legal and administrative manuals. In a country where the police force operates according to century-and-a-half-old legislation, it comes as no surprise that mutilation of bodies during autopsy may still be deemed permissible by the guidelines of a certain state. Hopefully, the Orissa case will bring about some serious introspection. And a dead man will have his rights.