
Air India crash families in UK have ‘received the wrong bodies', say lawyers
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
Taking note of an earlier report on the issue by Daily Mail, the Indian govt has clarified that the victims were identified as per 'established protocols and technical requirements' and that they 'are continuing to work with the UK authorities on addressing any concerns related to this issue,' MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said on Wednesday. 'All mortal remains were handled with utmost professionalism and with due regard for the dignity of the deceased,' he added.
'Sadly, the stories of mistakes with mixed remains have been repeatedly recounted to us by families we represent,' Sarah Stewart, aviation partner at Stewarts, a law firm, told TOI. 'Our clients feel that they were let down, with allegedly apparent mistakes by the forensic teams in India and insufficient support by British consular services, the foreign office and the British crisis response teams for the families of those British citizens killed in the accident.
'
Demetrius Danas, a specialist aviation law lawyer at Irwin Mitchell, which is also advising some families affected by the
, told TOI some families have reported receiving remains not belonging to their loved ones. He said this raises 'serious questions around the recovery and repatriation process' and 'just adds to the hurt and pain they continue to face'.
James Healy-Pratt, aviation partner at Keystone Law in the UK, which is representing around 20 families of victims, told TOI they 'expect PM Starmer to raise these serious issues with PM Modi this week in London.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
The families deserve urgent answers and assurances about the whereabouts of their loved ones.'
The identification of mortal remains and DNA matching was carried out by the Ahmedabad civil hospital.
A UK govt spokesperson said: 'Formal identification of bodies is a matter for the Indian authorities.' However, allrepatriated remains are being independently investigated in line with UK processes, by the Inner West London Senior Coroner, based in Westminster in the UK.
The coroner opened and adjourned her inquest into 12 deaths on July 9. Disaster victim identification experts from the UK have been deployed to Ahmedabad to support the UK's consular response and 'to understand in-country processes for victim identification, mortuary operations and support services', the UK govt said.
Relatives of one victim had to abandon their funeral plans after being informed that their coffin contained the body of an unknown passenger rather than their family member, the Daily Mail reported.
In another case, the 'commingled' remnants of more than one person killed in the crash were mistakenly placed in the same casket. They had to be separated before the funeral could go ahead, the Mail reported.
The BBC spoke to a third person, Miten Patel, who said the coroner told him that 'other remains' were found in his mother Shobhana's casket. Both his mother and father, Ashok, were killed in the crash. "There has to be a level of responsibility that you're sending the right bodies to the UK,' he said.
The bungled repatriation was uncovered when Inner West London senior coroner Prof Fiona Wilcox sought to verify repatriated Britons' identities by matching their DNA with samples provided by the families.
Around 12 bodies have been repatriated to the UK so far.
James Healy-Pratt of Keystone Law told the Mail: 'I've been sitting down in the homes of these lovely British families over the last month, and the first thing they want is their loved ones back. But some of them have got the wrong remains and they are clearly distraught over this. I think these families deserve an explanation. One family now has no one to bury because it was the wrong person in their casket. And if isn't their relative, the question is, who is it in that coffin?'

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New Indian Express
18 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
‘Baseless charges': Church condemns Malayali nuns' arrest in Chhattisgarh
KOCHI: The arrest of two Malayali nuns in Chhattisgarh on Friday has triggered outrage, with Christian organisations demanding immediate and decisive action to curb religious fanaticism. Nuns Preetha Mary and Vandana Francis from the Assisi Sisters of Mary Immaculate under the Syro-Malabar Church in Cherthala, who were accompanying three girls, were arrested by the Chhattisgarh police at Durg railway station and charged with forced religious conversion and human trafficking. The Catholic Bishops' Conference of India (CBCI) said the nuns were arrested despite possessing written consent letters from the parents of the girls, who are over 18 years of age. The CBCI urged the state governments to ensure the safety and protection of all women, especially those in religious service, and sought the urgent intervention of the Union government to prevent such incidents. The Kerala Catholic Bishops' Council's (KCBC) Social Harmony and Vigilance Commission, in an official statement on Sunday, said the police's action was reportedly prompted by false and baseless allegations of religious conversion and human trafficking made by members of the Bajrang Dal. 'This distressing incident is part of a broader and deeply troubling pattern of increasing hostility towards Christians and missionary personnel across various Indian states. The weaponisation of anti-conversion laws by extremist groups is not only unjust but also poses a serious threat to the constitutional rights of religious minorities in the country. We affirm that Catholic missionaries do not engage in forced conversions,' the commission said. The CBCI said the Catholic Church will raise the issue on all appropriate platforms and 'strongly oppose any attempt to malign the dignity of religious nuns and priests or to curtail religious freedom.'


Hans India
18 minutes ago
- Hans India
AP fast emerging as best investment destination: CM
Singapore: Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu, who chose to go to Singapore professedly to rebuild ties that he believes had strained under the previous administration, has positioned the state as a burgeoning investment destination, citing abundant opportunities in key sectors like ports and green energy. During his ongoing official visit to Singapore, he affirmed that the state was actively implementing progressive policies designed to attract Singaporean enterprises. On Sunday, Chief Minister Naidu met with Shilpak Ambule, the Indian High Commissioner to Singapore, with whom the discussions centered on strengthening economic ties and exploring investment avenues. High Commissioner Ambule underscored the significant recognition and respect the 'CBN Brand' commanded within Singapore's government and industrial sectors. Chief Minister Naidu, recalling the earlier collaboration on the Amaravati capital city project, acknowledged Singapore's withdrawal between 2019 and 2024 due to unforeseen developments. He stated that a key objective of his current visit was to address past misunderstandings and rebuild the narrative through renewed engagement. The Chief Minister detailed Andhra Pradesh's newly introduced investment policies, reiterating the state's ambitious goal of achieving 160 gigawatt of green energy generation. He informed the High Commissioner that green hydrogen projects are already underway in Visakhapatnam (in partnership with NTPC) and Kakinada. Solidifying the state's technological aspirations, CM Naidu announced that Andhra Pradesh was set to establish India's first-ever Quantum Valley in Amaravati under the India Quantum Mission. He also confirmed that global tech giant Google was setting up a data center in Visakhapatnam. Highlighting the state's industrial potential, CM Naidu pointed out that regions like Rayalaseema offered highly conducive conditions for the establishment of defence, aerospace, electronics, and automobile manufacturing units. He expressed his view that Andhra Pradesh could serve as a strategic gateway for Singaporean investments into India and sought support to facilitate this. High Commissioner Ambule also noted that 83% of Singapore's population benefited from public housing projects. In response, Minister P. Narayana provided an overview of Andhra Pradesh's housing initiatives. The meeting also focused on collaboration in fields such as Artificial Intelligence, startups, medical device research, and academic partnerships between universities in Andhra Pradesh and Singapore. Ministers Nara Lokesh and TG Bharat, along with senior government officials from Andhra Pradesh, were present during the discussions.


Indian Express
18 minutes ago
- Indian Express
The language debate in Maharashtra and a soft sedition
A few weeks ago, a shopkeeper was allegedly attacked in Mumbai by Maharashtra Navnirman Sena workers for not speaking Marathi. Similar attacks have been reported across Maharashtra and other parts of India. In Bengaluru, destruction of Hindi-written signage is quite frequent, and in Tamil Nadu, anti-Hindi campaigns have a long history — they often resurface in response to perceived threats to Tamil. Even in Delhi, there is, at times, a subtle exclusion of those who speak with a southern accent or hail from the Northeast. Instances of regional prejudice feed into the trend of linguistic vigilantism that is increasingly spreading across the nation. These tendencies are not secessionist, but they undermine national integration and constitute a new type of 'soft sedition'. They represent a kind of regional hegemony that lives by cultural bullying, verbal violence and everyday discrimination. The underlying causes of this crisis resurfaced with the implementation of the New Education Policy (NEP) 2020, especially its three-language equation. NEP aims to develop multilingualism and enhance national integration, but its implementation requires students to be taught three languages, including at least two Indian languages. On paper, it allows states to choose these languages. However, in many parts of non-Hindi India, it was seen as a surreptitious advancement of Hindi and perceived as a threat to local languages. Politicians from all parties and regions play on people's fears. They have started muddying the waters again — overt threats against Hindi speakers and migrants from Northern regions are being justified as a counter to Hindi imposition. Even the national parties are hesitant to address this problem, for fear of alienating their state units. The crisis requires us to look again at the philosophical and constitutional basis of the republic. Article 1 of the Constitution says, 'India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.' This choice of words reflects a conscious rejection of the idea that states are sovereign, cultural or political entities. Unlike a federation that unites countries through treaties, India is a civilisational polity where states derive their legitimacy from the Union. The 1956 linguistic reorganisation was intended to accommodate diversity through better administration. Language does create a strong sense of identity and belonging in India, but it needs to be framed as a common resource — not the right of any state. It is the means through which we connect, share ideas, and forge relationships. Our linguistic diversity should not be a reason for division, but a means by which we understand and are understood. The Constitution gives every Indian citizen freedom through Articles 14, 19 and 21. Every Indian has the right not only to speak their language but also to work and reside throughout the country. A Bihari living in Bengaluru or a Manipuri living in Mumbai is not an outsider; they are equal citizens of the nation. This is not just a cultural sensitivity issue, but a matter of constitutional morality, which Ambedkar invoked while warning against majoritarian tyranny. Any attempt by political or local actors to create linguistic conformity is a violation of the Constitution. Linguistic violence impacts internal migration, which is essential for India's economy, by making workers fear discrimination in unfamiliar states. Such chauvinism exacerbates mistrust between linguistic groups. This anxiety proliferates into educational contexts, job interviews and housing preferences, shrinking the ambit of what it means to be Indian. Cultural majoritarianism does not simply become political, as Ashis Nandy warned, but alters how people see themselves and their social location. This leads us to refer to the phrase, 'soft sedition'. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, has updated how we interpret threats to the nation. BNS's Section 152 acknowledges that threats to the nation-state do not always take the form of rebellion, insurrection, or armed revolt. Language-based exclusion, violence and campaigning carve out zones of exclusion. Such ideological subversion must, therefore, be addressed as a potential national security threat and seen as an assault on 'the unity and integrity of India'. Supporters of regional identities argue that linguistic pride is crucial to India's federal character. They are not wrong. India's strength has always been its ability to bind together many languages, cultures and traditions. But diversity should not be confused with division. Love for one's mother tongue does not condone hostility towards another. The executive must act quickly and decisively. Law enforcement agencies should be directed to identify, monitor, report and prosecute language-based hate crimes under the new BNS provisions. Political parties disseminating linguistic hatred must be held accountable under the law. As the final protector and guardian of the Constitution, the Supreme Court must also act. The Centre should consider launching a National Linguistic Harmony Mission, preferably in coordination with the Ministry of Home Affairs or the Ministry of Culture, to monitor interstate animosity, promote mutual respect and create outlets where citizens who speak different languages can interact. The Home Ministry should issue public advisories clarifying that verbal abuse and online troll attacks based on language will be considered a crime under the BNS. In the Republic of India, no one is a second-class citizen. India's strength has never come from forcing sameness, but from embracing difference. From Kalidasa and Rabindranath Tagore to Dharamvir Bharati and Premchand, our greatest voices came from different corners, yet spoke to the same soul. India does not need a lingua franca; it needs a lingua familia, where each language is celebrated without any hierarchy. This is not just a call to protect words or languages. It is a call to protect who we are as a people. If we fail to act now, we risk the very idea of India. Sharma is assistant professor, Aryabhatta College, University of Delhi, and Kumar is advocate, Delhi High Court