No Right To Burial Or Cremation In Grounds Vested With Another Local Body Unless Protected By Article 25 Or Custom: Madras High Court

The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice KK Ramakrishnan thus refused relief for a group of villagers who had sought burial rights in a crematorium in another village. The court said that the villagers had not established a right under Article 25 of the Constitution and had only canvassed the plea based on convenience. The court noted that the balance of convenience could not be used to establish an enforceable right.

“The writ petitioners herein have not anchored their case on Article 25 of the Constitution of India. Convenience is the reason canvassed by them. Balance of convenience is one of the considerations for granting the relief of interim injunction. An enforceable right cannot be built on this foundation. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that those residing within the territorial limits of a local body cannot claim right of burial / cremation in the burial / cremation ground vested with another local body. However, such a right is enforceable if it partakes the character of a fundamental right under Article 25 of the Constitution or a customary right,” the court said.

The court was hearing a petition filed by villagers of Bommaiahgoundanpatti Village. According to the petitioners, they were cremating their dead in the crematorium ground located in Sukkuvadanpatti, a hamlet of Oonchampatti Panchayat. The petitioners had alleged that the residents of Sukkuvadanpatti Village were preventing them from exercising their right to cremate in the Panchayat crematorium. It was argued that, considering the proximity of the village, it would be convenient for the residents to use the Sukkuvadanpatti cremation ground.

On the other hand, the Sukkuvadanpatti villagers made it clear that they were not willing to relax their stand. The court was informed that the villagers of Sukkuvadanpatti had joined together and purchased land where they built a crematorium and handed it over to the Oonchampatti Village Panchayat.

The question before the court was thus whether the villagers could demand that they be allowed to use the crematorium of another village.

Answering in the negative, the court held that a local body was to cater to the needs of its local residents only. The court held that only the inhabitants residing within the territorial limits of a local body could have a correlative right, and this right could not be claimed by a non-resident. The court added that when a person was denied access to using a cremation ground for the reason that he was not a local inhabitant or did not die within the local limits, the same was not against the law.

The court also noted that there was a gasified crematorium in the village over which the Bommaiahgoundanpatti villagers had an enforceable right.

Thus, the court held that a person could not demand that he or she be cremated in a cremation or burial ground that is vested with a panchayat where he or she is not a resident. However, the court also added a caveat that if the custom recognises a particular place as a consecrated ground open to Hindus irrespective of their residential status, the same would come under the fundamental right protected under Article 25 of the Constitution.

Thus, noting that the petitioners in the present case had not established any right, the court dismissed the plea.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. M. A. M. Raja

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. M. Kannan, Government Advocate, Mr. M. Saravanan

Case Title: Anbalagan P and Others v The District Collector and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 320

Case No: WP (MD) No 27734 of 2022