Supreme Court Bench Split On Plea Of Christian Man To Bury Father In Native Village; Directs Burial In Another Village

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 fraternityJustice 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 directions1. 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 viewJustice 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....

Supreme Court Bench Split On Plea Of Christian Man To Bury Father In Native Village; Directs Burial In Another Village

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

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.

Tags