'Betrayal Of Secularism' : Justice Nagarathna Criticises Chhattisgarh Authorities For Denying Christian Burial In Village

Today, the Supreme Court delivered a split verdict on the plea of a Christian man from Chhattisgarh to bury the dead body of his father, a pastor, either in the burial ground of their native village Chindwara or in their private agricultural land.

While Justice B.V. Nagarathna allowed the appellant to bury his father in his private agricultural property, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma held that the burial could be held only at the area designated for Christians, which is at Karkapal village (about 20-25 kilometres away from the appellant's native place).

Due to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case especially since the body has been lying in the mortuary since January 7 and giving utmost importance to the right to a decent burial, the judges refrained from making a reference to a third bench. Despite their disagreement, the judges passed directions based on the consensus that the Appellant shall be allowed to bury his father in village Karkapal with adequate logistic support and with police protection. 

Abdication of duty by Gram Panchayat 

Justice Nagarathna in her judgment has blamed the Gram Panchayat for abdicating from its duty to ensure that a dead person is buried within 24 hours irrespective of whatever faith he follows. 

In the 37-page judgment, she addressed the Appellant's wish to accord a decent burial to his father in his own native village but was met with "abrupt hurdles" from villagers which also extended to restraining him to rest his father's mortal remains in their privately owned agricultural land. 

Particularly, Justice Nagarathna noted that the Appellant had made representations to the SHO, police station, District Bastar and the SDO, Tokapal. However, he did not receive any aid failing which he approached the High Court.

During the pendency of the writ petition, the Barahpal Chindwara Gram Panchayat No.1, 2 and 3 issued a certificate stating that there existed no graveyard of Christian community at any place within the limits of Gram Panchayat. The High Court had taken note of this certificate and accordingly disposed of the petition stating that the Appellant may bury his father in village Karkapal.

Before the High Court and also before the Supreme Court, the Appellant had contended that there had been oral permission from the Gram Panchayat to bury Christian tribals in the graveyard for the Mahra community where separate space has been demarcated for them adjacent to portion meant for Hindu Mahra graveyard. 

Justice Nagarathna considered that the counter-affidavit filed by the State of Chattisgarh and sworn by the ASP, District Bastar, had stated: "Any person who has forsworn the tradition of the community or has converted into a Christian is not allowed to be buried at the village graveyard."

Taking into consideration all these factors, and as per Rules 3(disposal of corpse within 24 hours), 4(Gram Panchayat to arrange for disposal of corpse) and 5 (place for disposal of corpses) of the Chhattisgarh Gram Panchayat (Regulating Places for Disposal of Dead Bodies, Carcasses and other Offensive Matter) Rules, 1999, which cast duty on the Gram Panchayat to dispose of the corpse within 24 years, Justice Nagarathna stated that the Panchayat abdicated from its duties.

Internal demarcation indicate separate appear for Mahra community practising Christianity 

In the context of whether there was a separate graveyard for Christian tribals, Justice Nagarathna noted that there isn't. But she added: "It is also noted that earlier, at least 20 persons belonging to the Christian faith have been buried in the graveyard and the Gram Panchayat of Barahpal, Chhindwada had always orally permitted the members of the Christian community belonging to the Mahracommunity to be buried in the demarcated space in the village graveyard and the burials have taken place since mid-1980s and as late as in February 2024.

She further noted: " When earlier the Gram Panchayat, Barahpal, Chhindwada had permitted burial of the dead who were followers of the Christian faith, there is no reason to disallow in the case of the appellant's father."

Justice Nagarathna on a harmonious reading of the affidavits filed by both sides, averred: "That in the area demarcated as a graveyard for the Mahra community, there is an internal demarcation as (i) Hindu Mahra graveyard; and, (ii) Christian Mahra graveyard. The persons belonging to respective faiths are buried within the area demarcated for the Mahra community all these decades without there being any objection from any quarter."

She observed that the demarcation may not be by a formal order passed by the Panchayat but the allocation of the respective areas within the area reserved for the Mahra community in the graveyard is indicative of the fact that the Panchayat of the Barahpal village Chhindwada has all along recognised and permitted the burial of the dead, as per their faith, in the demarcated areas of the graveyard meant for the entire Mahra community.

"There has never been any objection to the burial of several other persons belonging to the Mahra Community following Christian faith in the said graveyard from any of the residents of the village inasmuch as the additional affidavit of the appellant indicates that all along persons belonging to the Mahra community following the Christian faith have buried their dead in the area demarcated for the said community. iv. The second additional affidavit of the appellant also indicates that not one Christian in Chhindwada village has used the graveyard in village Karkapal," Justice Nagarathna averred.

In light of the observations made above, Justice Nagarathna said:

"The village Panchayat has abdicated its duty to ensure burial of appellant's father within a period of 24 hours of his death. Instead, the Panchayat has been taking sides which led to the appellant approaching the High Court and finally this Court. Had the village Panchayat quelled the “aggressive objections” and “threats to the appellant's family”, the matter would have been resolved at the village itself.

Instead, the affidavit of the ASP, Bastar, states “Any person who has forsworn the tradition of the community or has converted into a Christian is not allowed to be buried at the village graveyard. This declaration by the respondents is unfortunate. To my mind, this is nothing but a violation of Article 14 [equality before law] and Article 15(1) [probition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth] of the Constitution of India which speak of equality before the law and the equal protection of the laws as well as places a strict prohibition of discrimination on the ground of religion, respectively."

State authorities' attitude hostile, smacks of discrimination 

Justice Nagarathna remarked that the issue could have been solved amicably at the village level but it was given a different taint by the Respondent-authorities. She said: "Such an attitude on the part of the respondents betrays their responsibility towards all citizens residing in the village and smacks of hostile discrimination and divisiveness and gives an impression that certain sections of the village can be discriminated against."

She also stated that the failure of the Gram Panchayat to discharge its duty led to social ostracisation of the Appellant and his family.

She said:

"It also needs to be observed that, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the grievance of the appellant stems from respondent No.9-Gram Panchayat's failure to discharge its duty to approve a place for burial for Mahra community following Christian faith howsoever small in number they may be within its jurisdiction. This has led to social ostracisation of the appellant and his family."

Under what authority did the ASP Bastar issued such a declaration that a person converted cannot be buried in native village 

Further questioning the authority of the declaration made by the ASP, Bastar, Justice Nagarathna reminded that the duty of the police is to maintain law and order and to ensure peace and harmony in the society.

She questioned: "What is the basis for such a declaration? Such an attitude on the part of local authorities, at the village level or higher level, indicates a betrayal of the sublime principles of secularism and the glorious traditions of our country which believes in “Sarva Dharma Samanvaya/Sarva Dharma Samabhava” which is the essence of secularism. Secularism together with the concept of fraternity, as envisaged under our Constitution, is a reflection of harmony between all religious faiths leading to common brotherhood and unity of the social fabric in the country. It is therefore incumbent on all citizens as well as institutions, whether of governance or otherwise, to foster fraternity amongst the citizens. It is brotherhood and fraternity among citizens which would make the country stronger and more cohesive given the diversity of the land and the need for unity."

Justice Nagarathna concluded her judgment by quoting observations made by the Supreme Court in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs. Union of India (2023) in the context of the principle of fraternity. Also, the significant works of Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy in landmark Bijoe Emmanuel vs. State of Kerala (1986):

"Our tradition teaches tolerance; our philosophy preaches tolerance; our Constitution practises tolerance; let us not dilute it.”

Also read - No Absolute Right To Choose Place Of Burial; State Has Duty To Provide All Religious Communities Places For Last Rites: Justice SC Sharma

Case Details: RAMESH BAGHEL v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 1399/2025

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 113

Appearances: Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves and Advocate Umesh Kumar for petitioner; Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta for the State.

Click here to read the judgment