Delhi HC directs Indian High Commission in London to issue NOC for transfer of mortal remains from UK to Hyderabad

New Delhi [India], August 17 (ANI): The Delhi High Court has directed the Indian High Commission in London to issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to the wife of the late Alfi Richard Watts.

This NOC is required for transferring the mortal remains of Alfi Richard Watts from the United Kingdom to Hyderabad. This decision facilitates the repatriation process and ensures that the deceased can be laid to rest according to his family’s wishes.

The father of the deceased, Alfi Richard Watts, recently approached the Delhi High Court regarding the transfer of his son’s mortal remains. He highlighted that while the authorities in the United Kingdom, including the local Member of Parliament and County Councillor, have fully supported and facilitated the process, the transfer is hindered by the lack of a Non-Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Indian High Commission in London.

The NOC was denied on July 29, 2024, due to Watts’s status as a British citizen without an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card. The plea sought the court’s intervention aims to resolve this issue and enable the repatriation.

The bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula in an order on August 16, said “The communication dated July 29, 2024, passed by Consular Section, High Commission of India, London, refusing to grant a No Objection Certificate for the transfer of mortal remains, is set aside”.

A mandamus is issued directing the Indian High Commission in London to issue a No

Objection Certificate to Petitioner’s daughter-in-law/ Sharon Alphonso for transfer of mortal remains of late Alfi Richard Watts from the United Kingdom to Hyderabad.

Advocates Avinash Mathews and Namrata Caleb appeared for the petitioner/Father of the deceased and submitted that the inconsistency in guidelines applied by various Indian diplomatic posts worldwide leads to arbitrary treatment based on the deceased’s location at the time of death. They assert that crucial consular services, which are integral to human dignity and family rights, should not vary depending on the deceased’s nationality or specific documentation like a PIO or OCI card. This is especially relevant when there are significant Indian origins or connections involved. The petitioner seeks a more uniform and equitable approach to such services.

The petitioner highlights that the differing guidelines applied by the Indian High Commission in the United Kingdom, compared to those in Singapore and the USA, raise significant concerns about the consistency and rationale of consular services. This discrepancy underscores the need for a uniform approach to ensure equitable treatment in handling such sensitive matters globally.

The petitioner points out that the Indian High Commission in London requires an OCI card for the repatriation of mortal remains, while other Indian commissions do not impose such stringent requirements. This inconsistency suggests arbitrariness in the application of these rules.

The petitioner emphasizes that despite Mr. Watts’s change in nationality, he was of Indian origin, as evidenced by his birth and familial ties to Indian citizens, which should be considered in the repatriation process.

The court observed that the guidelines for the transfer of mortal remains emphasize that the deceased should be of Indian origin. Since it has been confirmed through documents that Watts was of Indian origin, the court deemed it appropriate to grant the petitioner’s request for repatriation.