In determining the case, Justice Quinlan-Williams rejected claims from state attorneys that the policy was not an outright ban, as it was contained in guidelines to hospital staff and funeral agencies and not in public health regulations that restricted citizens’ movements and ability to gather. Photo: Internet Source

The case was filed by Ramsaroop-Persad in August 2021 after her father, Silochan Ramsaroop, passed away five days after being admitted to the Couva Medical and Multi-Training Facility, two months earlier.

Ramsaroop-Persad’s brother applied at the Chaguanas Police Station for a permit for their father to be cremated at the Waterloo Cremation Site and it was granted. 

However, hours later, a police officer contacted the family and claimed that the permit was revoked as it was issued in error because of the ongoing prohibition against open-air pyre cremations for COVID-19 victims.

As part of the lawsuit, Ramsaroop-Persad’s legal team relied on the evidence of several international medical experts including epidemiologist Dr Farley Cleghorn, who claimed that the policy was unnecessary.

They also claim that the policy was not supported by the World Health Organization (WHO) or the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, whose advice the ministry and by extension the Government has been relying on during the ongoing pandemic. 

In response to the lawsuit, the State has relied on the evidence of Chief Medical Officer Dr Roshan Parasram, who claimed that an average pyre does not completely destroy a human body and that the eruption of bodily fluids from corpses presents “an uncertain risk” to mourners at an open-air cremation.

The Sanatan Dharma Maha Sabha (SDMS) also filed a similar lawsuit as the policy mainly affected Hindu citizens. However, it withdrew its case in January 2022, after the policy was abandoned following a meeting with then-attorney general Faris Al-Rawi.

In determining the case, Justice Quinlan-Williams rejected claims from state attorneys that the policy was not an outright ban, as it was contained in guidelines to hospital staff and funeral agencies and not in public health regulations that restricted citizens’ movements and ability to gather.

“While a guideline by its nature, ordinarily may not mean to have the force of law but advise on how something should be done the court disagrees that the Ministry of Health’s guidelines under consideration fall into that category,” she said.

“There is no alternative interpretation for the phrase ‘will not be’, but as a prohibition,” she added.