- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- Supreme Court Bench Split On Plea...
Supreme Court Bench Split On Plea Of Christian Man To Bury Father In Native Village; Directs Burial In Another Village
Gursimran Kaur Bakshi
27 Jan 2025 11:06 AM IST
Justice Nagarthana criticised the State emphasised the need to protect secularism & fraternity. Justice Sharma opined that burial can be held only at the designated place.
The Supreme Court on Monday (January 27) 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 BV Nagarathna allowed the appellant to bury his father in his private property, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma held...
The Supreme Court on Monday (January 27) 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 BV Nagarathna allowed the appellant to bury his father in his private 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).
Despite the disagreement, the bench refrained from referring the dispute to a larger bench, since the body has been lying in the mortuary since January 7. Instead, the bench chose to pass a consensual direction that the burial be held at the designated place for Christians.
The final order passed by the bench was as follows :
"There is no consensus between the members of the bench regarding the resting place of the appellant's father. We do not wish to refer the matter to a third judge bench having regard to the fact that the appellant's father's body is in the mortuary for the last three weeks. Bearing in mind the fact that the deceased has been kept in the mortuary for the last three weeks, and in order to accord to a dignified and expeditious burial of the deceased, we agree to issue the following directions in the exercise of powers under Article 142.
The appellant shall bury his father at the Christian burial ground in Village Karkapal. The respondent state and the local authorities shall provide them all logistical support and give them adequate police protection.
The aforesaid direction is issued having regard to the peculiar facts of this case and bearing in mind the judicial stewardship and to alleviate the predicament and suffering of the appellant and his family."
The appellant's father died on January 7, 2025. He wanted to bury his father, who belonged to the Mahra tribal community, at the burial ground in their village, saying that all their ancestors were buried there. However, the gram panchayat and the villagers objected, saying that the burial ground could be used only for the Hindu tribals and not for Christians. The appellant approached the Chhattisgarh High Court. The High Court disposed of his petition asking him to bury the body at the designated place for Christians at Karkapal village. Following this, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.
Justice Nagarathna criticises State & Panchayat, emphasises the importance of secularism and fraternity
Justice Nagarathana in her opinion observed that as no place has been marked for the Christian community by the gram panchayat, the only alternative that the appellant has is to use his private land. Such a plea is reasonable. The contrary suggestion made by the State is that the appellant could bury his father at the designated place at Karkapal village (about 20 -25 km from his native village). The High Court ought to have appreciated the predicament faced by the appellant by directing the gram panchayat to permit the burial at the burial ground used by the Mahra community or permit the burial at his private land. The village panchayat has "abdicated its duty" to ensure the burial of the appellant's father within 24 hours. Instead, the village panchayat has been "taking sides."
Justice Nagarathna observed that it was a violation of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution to deny the appellant access to the burial ground. What could have been solved at the village level has been given a different colour. The stand of the respondent(State) gives an impression that certain communities can be discriminated against. Such an attitude on the part of the village level and the higher levels betrays the glorious principles of secularism and fraternity. It is incumbent upon all citizens to foster fraternity. It is brotherhood and fraternity among citizens which will make the country more cohesive.
Justice Nagarathna issued the following directions
1. The appellant shall be permitted to conduct a funeral at his private agricultural land at Chindwara.
2. Respondents to give adequate security and protection at village Chindwara.
3. Respodnetns are directed to demarcate areas for the burial of Christians to avoid controversy. Carry out the said exercise within 2 months.
Justice Nagarthan invoked the observation made by the Supreme Court in the Ashwini Upadhyay case that "Bharat is a secular nation committed to securing fundamental rights to all sections as contemplated in the Constitution". She also quoted Justice Chinnappa Reddy's famous quote from the Bijoe Emmanual case that, "Our tradition teaches tolerance, our Constitution teaches tolerance, let us not dilute it."
Justice Sharma's view
Justice Sharma held that as per the Chhattisgarh Panchayat rules, burial can be permitted only at the designated places. Hence, a person cannot claim a blanket right to bury the body at a place of his choice.
A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma pronounced the judgment in which the order was reserved on January 22. Throughout the two hearings, the Court expressed that it was pained to hear such a case where the man had to come to the Supreme Court to bury his father. It stated that the Court wants to amicably settle the matter so that a decent burial could take place of the body lying in the mortuary since January 7.
To briefly summarise, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State of Chattishgarh along with the State's Advocate General had argued that the burial can take place at the State's expense and with full police protection. But it has to take place designated area for the Christian Tribals, which is about 20-30 kilometres away from the present village in Karkapal village. It was argued that the burial was subject to Article 25 of the Constitution which is an exception to public order.
Whereas, Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, for the petitioner, asserted their stand that the burial should take place in the native village where his ancestors have been buried. Alternatively, it was argued that the petitioner's father could be buried in his own private land.
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.
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.”
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.