Denying Public Burial/ Cremation Ground Access To Marginalised Community Constitutes Untouchability; Collector Can Take Action: Madras High Court

Justice V Lakshminarayanan added that denying public burial or cremation ground to a person from marginalised community is a form of practicing untouchability which is prohibited under Article 17 of the Constitution.

“This Act mandates denying a person from a marginalised community access to the public burial or cremation ground is a criminal offence. It is a form of practicing untouchability, which has been declared as unconstitutional under Article 17 of the Constitution of India,” the court said.

The Court also noted that the Act gave powers to the District Collector to issue directions whenever persons from marginalised community were treated unfairly. The court thus directed the District Collector of Erode to take action against persons who had allegedly levelled the graves of people belonging to the marginalised community.

The court was hearing plea in connection to usage of a cart track as burial ground. One of the petitioners had alleged that the cart track was being used as a primary route connecting his land to the main road. He argued that the land was being misused by some of the villagers who were dumping garbage and conducting cremation. He argued that the activities were polluting the environment and obstructing public access.

Meanwhile, some of the villagers sought to be impleaded in the plea. According to them, the graveyard existed from time immemorial and there was no other graveyard in the village. It was submitted that several of the ancestors and their family members were buried or cremated in the graveyard and yearly rituals were also being conducted at the place.

The villagers also informed the court that some persons, with mischievous intention and claiming ownership of land in vicinity, had unlawfully and illegally trespassed into the graveyard and cleared up trees, tombstones, headstones, gravestones etc along with remains of corpses using bulldozer and moving earth.

Another petition was filed by a Doctor who owned land near the graveyard. He submitted that his brother, along with the help of other individuals, had levelled the graveyard, uprooting the trees, gravestones, tombstones etc. He also informed the court that no prior permission from the authorities was taken before doing such activity.

The Court called for a report from the District Collector who informed the court that the land in question was classified as cart track poromboke in revenue records but was being used as a burial ground for over 70 years by people in the village. The Collector also confirmed that the graves situated in the land had been disturbed and levelled using machinery.

After going through the records available before it, the court noted that the land was being used as a burial ground and roads were laid down for accessing this land using the Panchayat Funds, to enable persons to have proper access for burial. Thus, relying on the resolution passed by the council of Town Panchayat, along with cash register, Road/Street ledger and the report of the District Collector, the court concluded that the land was being used as a burial ground from 2000.

Though some of the parties argued that there was a modern crematorium nearby, which the villagers could access, the court observed that it could not decide where a body must be buried or crematorium. The court added that if such modern crematorium was available, it was for the Town Panchayat to issue necessary notification banning cremation in any other land

The Court also expressed displeasure in the manner in which the graves were disturbed and the land was levelled. Noting that all religions emphasised dignity of the dead, the court added that destructing of the existing graves not only affected the peace but also caused distress to the relatives who were still alive. The court added that when the graves were destroyed, the State should have immediately taken action and initiated proceedings by invoking Section 301 BNSS (297 IPC).

Thus, the Court directed the District Collector to ensure that the burial ground/crematorium is segregated and properly fenced. The court also directed the Karumandiselli Palayam (Special Grade) Town Panchayat to maintain the burial ground/crematorium free from any encroachment or dumping of waste. The court further directed the District Collector to direct the concerned Tahsildar and Revenue Divisional Officer to take immediate action for measuring and reclassifying the land.

Counsel for Petitioner: Ms. Jhansi Greeta for Mr. M. Sidhardhan, Mr. M. Guruprasad, Mr. C. S. K. Sathish

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. L. S. M. Hasan Fizal, Additional Government Pleader, Mr. Arun Anbumani, Mr. T. Chezhian, Mr. Abrar Mohammed Abdullah for Mr. K. Kathiresan

Case Title: KS Balakrishnan v. The District Collector and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 79

Case No: W.P.Nos.36402, 37501 & 44377 of 2025