Gasifier Crematorium Is Only To Benefit Community: Madras High Court Dismisses Plea Against Construction Of Crematorium By Isha Foundation

The Madras High Court recently dismissed a plea challenging the construction of Kalabhairavar Dhagana Mandapam by the Isha Foundation. The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that the Tamil Nadu Village Panchayats (Provision of Burial and Burning Grounds) Rules, 1999 did not prohibit granting of license for crematorium within 90 meters of dwelling place or source of drinking water supply. The court noted that as per the rules, the only pre-requisite was to obtain license from the village panchayat. The bench also noted that construction of the gasifier crematorium would be for the benefit of the community and could not be said to be against public interest. “All other submissions made are with regard to suitability and administrative consideration of local bodies, with which, we would not interfere, because, addition of a crematorium, that too gasifier crematorium is only to the benefit of the community and cannot be said to be against their interest,” the court said. The court was hearing three writ petitions challenging the establishment of crematorium by Isha Foundation. Challenge was made to the order issued by the President of the Ikkarai Boluvampatti Village Panchayat, the Assistant Director of Panchayats (Rural), and the District Environment Engineer Coimbatore South (Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board) giving their approval for the crematorium. The main challenge was that the establishment of the crematorium violated Rule 7 of the Tamil Nadu Village Panchayats (Provision of Burial and Burning Grounds) Rules, 1999 as no crematorium could be established within a prohibited distance of 90 meters. The authorities and the private respondents, on the other hand, submitted that a full bench of the High Court had dealt with the issue in Jagadheeswari v. B.Babu Naidu. The court noted that as per the full bench decision, except the place that was already registered as a burial/burning ground, or a new place for which license had been obtained as per Rule 5 of the Rules, no body could be buried or burnt in the place which was neither registered or granted license. The court thus rejected the argument of the petitioners that no permission could be granted for burial/burning ground. The court thus dismissed the plea. Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. M. Purushothaman, Mr. N. Jothi Senior Counsel for Mr. D. Jayasekar Counsel for Respondents: Mr. E.Vijay Anand Addl. Govt. Pleader, Mr. J.Ravindran Additional Advocate General Assisted By Mr. V.Gunasekar Standing Counsel, Mr. R.Parthasarathy Senior Counsel And Mr. Satish Parasaran Senior Counsel For Mr. A.P.Balaji & Mr. K.Gowtham Kumar, Mrs. V.Yamuna Devi Special Government Pleader Case Title: Murugammal and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 47 Case No: W.P.Nos.19414, 14353 & 18565 of 2024Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment

Gasifier Crematorium Is Only To Benefit Community: Madras High Court Dismisses Plea Against Construction Of Crematorium By Isha Foundation

Upasana Sajeev

Tags