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

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 police protection.Right to choose 'exact' place of burial not unqualified Justice Sharma's opinion, which runs into 18 pages, only addressed the issue in the context of: whether the fundamental right to conduct last rites as per one's specific religion or could extend to include the place where such ceremonies ought to be scheduled.Answering this question in negative, he referred to Rule 8(digging of graves) of the Chhattisgarh Gram Panchayat (Regulating Places for Disposal of Dead Bodies, Carcasses and Other Offensive Matter) Rules, 1999 as per which graves cannot be arbitrarily constructed. They must be established in areas identified by the Gram Panchayat. He observed:"A perusal of the CG Rules would reveal that graves cannot be arbitrarily constructed; and must be established in designated areas identified by the Gram Panchayat. The rationale behind the same appears to be extremely logical – the designation of an identified areas serves a salutary purpose of ensuring a systemised procedure of conducting last rites whilst paying due deference to the surrounding sensitivities but also, importantly encompasses a public-health angle. The earmarking of designated areas for every community in every village is an evolutionary process that is not perfect and slow-moving, however, it seeks to delicately handle aspects of human life, and beyond which must receive adequate judicial attention."Justice Sharma further averred:"I am unable to appreciate the need to exercise of our equitable jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to overcome the prohibition encapsulated under Rule 8 of the CG Rules; and permit the Appellant to bury the remains of the Deceased on his private land, more-so in light of the fact that a designated burial ground is present within the vicinity i.e., merely 20-25KM away in village Karkapal."Adding to this, he reiterated that although procedures pertaining to last rites including ceremonies involved are protected under Part III of the Constitution, there cannot be an unqualified right to choose the place of such ceremony where burial will take place. Justice Sharma further noted: "There can be no qualm about the fact that procedures pertaining to last rites; and ceremonies involved, from a part of the right(s) protected under Part III of the Constitution of India. However, to claim that such right(s) would encompass the unqualified right to choose the “place” of such ceremony (including burial) would prima facie appear to stretch constitutional limits beyond what was envisaged."He reasoned that the rights protected under Article 21 are subjected to 'procedure established by law' which are required to be just, fair and reasonable. In reference to the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion, Article 25 is subject to Clause 2 of Article 25 which enables the State to frame provisions regulating certain activities associated with religious practices. As per Justice Sharma, on a combined reading of the two provisions:"Thus, to claim an absolute or unqualified right in respect of the exact “place” of burial of a person under Article 21 and Article 25, prima facie, appears to be circumspect."He added:"Nonetheless, a person/ community cannot altogether be denied a place to carry out last rites including inter alia burials - on the contrary, the State has a duty to provide members of all religious communities with identified places to carry out last rites within the confines and limits of reason and rationality."Considering that there was a designated Christian burial ground in village Karkapal, he stated that there is no reason why the Appellant ought to be permitted to claim the absolute or unqualified right to bury his father in village Chhindawada.Case Details: RAMESH BAGHEL v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 1399/2025Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 113Appearances: Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves and Advocate Umesh Kumar for petitioner; Solicitor General of India Tushar...

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

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

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

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers