'We Want Decent Burial & Amicable Settlement' : Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Christian Man's Plea To Bury Father In Chhattisgarh Village

The Supreme Court today(January 22) reserved the order in a Special Leave Petition challenging the High Court of Chattisgarh's order dated January 9, 2025, whereby, the Court rejected the petitioner's plea to bury his father, who was a Christian pastor, in the Chindwara village graveyard.

During the hearing, the Supreme Court said that utmost importance must be given to the right of decent burial to the dead and therefore, it wants the matter to be settled amicably.

Today, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State of Chattishgarh along with the State's Advocate General filed a new affidavit and emphasised its arguments made in the last proceedings that the burial should take place in the designated area for the Christian Tribals, which is about 20-30 kilometers away from the present village. He argued that it is a matter of public order for the State and therefore, it has to be handled sensitively. However, a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma questioned how all of sudden there are objections from the Hindu Tribals when for years nobody raised objections to the burial of Christian Tribals and Hindu Tribals together.

Justice Nagarathna remarked that the objections by "so-called" villagers are a "new phenomenon". Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, for the petitioner, took the Court through revenue maps and argued that there are many cases where the Christian Tribals have been buried in the village itself. He answered that this case is treated differently because the person was converted. He took the Court through the counter-affidavit filed by the State and pointed out that the State has honestly accepted the argument that a converted person will not be allowed to be buried in the village.

Gonsalves argued that this is "patent discrimination" which has resulted in "communalism" of the dead person.

When Justice Nagarathan suggested that the alternative prayer of the petitioner to bury his father in his own private land could be considered, Mehta objected to it and stated that burials can take place only at the designated places. He pressed that the person be buried in the Karkapal village(different from the native village) with proper Christian rites and the State will provide ambulance and police protection. However, Gonsalves rejected this argument and he emphasised that the petitioner will bury his father where their ancestors have been buried. He warned that if anything else is allowed otherwise, it will set the beginning of such cases where Dalit persons, if converted, will not be allowed to bury the body in their village.

On January 20, the Court briefly heard the matter and expressed that it is pained by the fact that the State and the High Court have been unable to resolve the issue and that the man was forced to come to the Supreme Court to bury his father. It also called out the Chattisgarh High Court for taking shelter of public order and not being able to pass an appropriate order to resolve the issue.

Brief background 

As per the petition, the petitioner is a Tribal Christian. His father died on January 7 due to prolonged illness and old age illness after which, their family wanted to hold the last rites and bury his mortal in the area specified for Christians in the village graveyard. As per the SLP, some villagers aggressively objected to it and threatened them with dire consequences if the petitioner carried out the burial in the village graveyard.

When the villagers turned violent, the petitioner's family made a report to the police however the police exerted pressure on them to take the body out of the village. As a result of which, the body has been lying in the mortuary since January 7.

"The petitioner, village Chhindawada has a graveyard orally allotted by the traditional Gram Panchayat for burial/cremation of dead bodies. In this village, there are separate graveyards for Tribals and other Castes (Mahra). The separate areas are earmarked for the burial/cremation of persons belonging to the Hindu religion and for persons belonging to the Christian community in the graveyard of Mahar Caste. In the area specified for Christians, the petitioner's Aunt---- & Grandfather --- have been buried in the said village graveyard," the plea states.

As per the High Court, there is no separate burial ground for the Christians in the Chhindawala village but a separate burial ground is available for them in village Karkapal, which is situated at a distance of 20-25 km. It observed: "considering the fact that burial ground/graveyard of Christian community is available in nearby area, it will not be proper to grant relief as sought for by petitioner in this writ petition, which may cause unrest and disharmony in the public at large.”

On January 17, a bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma issued notice to the State of Chhattisgarh.

A recap of previous hearing 

On January 20, Mehta, for the State, stated that the body could be buried at the State's expense but 20 km outside the village where there is a burial ground for Christians. Mehta clarified that the village burial ground is only for Hindu tribals as per their rituals. He claimed that this position is supported by statutory rules. He further argued that the issue should not be decided on "emotions" as the intention is to make this a precedent to be followed throughout India. He added that this is an "Article 25 matter" and would be subjected to public order.

As per the State's counter affidavit filed in this case, any person who has foresworn the traditions of the community or has converted into a Christian is not allowed to be buried in the village graveyard.

However, Justice Nagarathna questioned why a person who has lived in a village not be buried there. She also questioned why for so long, no objection was raised against those Christian tribals that have been buried. Alternatively, she pointed out that the petitioner may be allowed to bury his father in his own private land. This too was opposed by Mehta stating that is prohibited because after burial, the "character of land" becomes "sacred".

Gonsalves stated that the State's counter-affidavit makes it clear that they have admitted the fact that the petitioner's relatives were buried in the village graveyard. He also showed the photos where his relatives were buried but with a 'cross' mark in the village graveyard. He added that the real issue is that the person was converted.

While Gonsalves accused the State is trying to "break with the tradition of secularism," Mehta claimed that they want to "start [this practice] at all India level" so that there is disturbance between "tribals who have converted and tribal who have not converted." Against this, Gonsalves responded that there are "communal elements" trying to create disturbance and stated that this in infact a movement "kick Christians away". Gonsalves added that a "very dangerous precedent" is being laid that "if you convert, you will have to go out of the village".

While the arguments between Gonsalves and Mehta continued, the Court expressed its concern about the lack of dignity afforded to a dead man. She said: "Mr. Solicitor, we are very sorry a man has to come to the Supreme Court to have his father [buried]. We are sorry to say, neither the Panchayat nor the State Government and either the High Court has [been] able to resolve this problem. And the High Court taking shelter and saying there would be law and order problem. We are pained by that. If the [High] Court and the State cannot resolve such a matter..We are pained for this person had to come to the Supreme Court to get his father buried."