Supreme Court: While considering the instant appeal wherein the Court was called to decide upon a site of burial of the appellant’s deceased father who was a Pastor and whose body was lying in in the mortuary of the District Hospital since 07-01-2025; the Division Bench of B.V. Nagarathna* and Satish Chandra Sharma**, JJ., delivered a spilt verdict in the matter. While Nagarathna, J., directed that the appellant shall be permitted to conduct the funeral rites of his father in his private agricultural land at village Chhindwada at the earliest; whereas Satish Chandra Sharma, J., directed that the appellant shall conduct the funeral rites and bury his deceased father at the burial ground at village Karkapal i.e., the ‘designated Christian burial ground’.
Background and Legal Trajectory:
The appellant, who is a third generation Christian, belongs to the New Apostolic Church. His family and ancestors have been native residents of village Chhindwada, Tehsil Darbha, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh for generations and belong to the Mahra caste or community. A native resident of the same village Chhindwada, the appellant’s father, a man of faith and a pastor since 1986-87, passed away on 7-1-2025, after suffering from prolonged illness and old age.
However, the appellant’s wish to bury his father in his own native village was met with abrupt hurdles as his fellow villagers objected and threatened the appellant’s family against the burial of the deceased pastor within the village. This objection to burial within the village confines also extended to restraining the appellant from laying to rest his father’s mortal remains in their privately owned agricultural land. The appellant alleged that even the local police forcefully exhorted his family to take the body out of the village. There was no help from the local Gram Panchayat as well. Compelled by circumstances and on the advice of fellow relatives, the family of the appellant proceeded to take his father’s body to the mortuary of District Hospital and Medical College, Jagdalpur.
The appellant knocked on the doors of Chhattisgarh High Court after having no aid from the State machinery and pleaded before the High Court to issue direction to the State of Chhattisgarh to allow the appellant to bury his father at the same site where his ancestors were buried in the village of Chhindwada and also sought police protection to that end.
During the pendency of the writ petition, the Barahpal Chindwara Gram Panchayat issued a certificate wherein it was certified that there existed no graveyard of Christian community at any place within the limits of the Gram Panchayat. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appellant’s petition with no relief.
Thus, the appellant approached the Supreme Court with the instant appeal.
Contentions:
Counsels for the appellant argued that the village Chhindwada has a graveyard and the Gram Panchayat has by an oral sanction permitted burial of dead bodies. Separate graveyards exist for Tribals and other communities. It was contended that there is a separate area earmarked for the burial/cremation of persons belonging to the Christian community within the graveyard of Mahra Caste or community. It was also argued that appellant’s ancestors and relatives, have throughout the decades been buried in the area demarcated for Christians.
Per contra, the respondents relied on the certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat to contend that no burial ground of the Christian community exists within its confines. It was alternatively argued that no one can have any quarrel with funeral rites performed as per original custom if the appellant were to be permitted to bury his father in village Karkapal, situated at a distance of 20-25 kms (or more) from the native village, where a separate burial ground for Christian community is available.
Justice B.V Nagarathna’s Opinion:
Nagarathna, J., 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 Mahra community 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. However, there is now hostility raised against the burial of the appellant’s father in the very same area. 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.
Nagarathna, J., pointed out that according to the Panchayat, there is no graveyard established yet for the Christian community by the Gram Panchayat within the premises of the village Chhindwada. “Even according to learned senior counsel for the appellant, members of the Christian community were being orally permitted to utilise a portion of the graveyard meant for the Mahra community adjacent to the area meant for the Hindu Mahra community. This is probably owing to there being no formal declaration by the Chhindwada Gram Panchayat”.
Nagarathna, J., said that it was the duty and obligation on the part of the Gram Panchayat to have formally demarcated an area for burial of Christians in Chhindwada village i.e. within its jurisdiction. She further pointed out that no material was produced before the Court to show that the burial of Christians deceased at Chhindwada village has taken place at Karkapal. No Government order or notification has been produced. There is also no material produced to show that Chhindwada Gram Panchayat has, in any manner prescribed the burial ground at Karkapal village to be the burial ground for Christians from Chhindwada village.
Nagarathna, J., further said that the High Court ought to have appreciated the predicament and difficulty faced by the appellant and could have found a solution in the prayers sought for by the appellant by directing the Gram Panchayat to permit burial either at the graveyard which was being used by Mahra Community following the Christian faith or in the alternative, permitted burial at the appellant’s private agricultural land. Instead, the High Court accepted a suggestion made by the respondents which has the effect of displacing a practice prevailing in Chhindwada village which was also acceptable to the Gram Panchayat over decades. As a result, there was harmony between all communities of the village; but the death of the appellant’s father, who was a pastor in the village, has given rise to disharmony in the village because it has not been suitably solved by the village Panchayat by finding an amicable solution. She sternly noted that instead of resolving the matter, 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”.
Taking stern note of Declaration provided by the ASP, Bastar, which had stated that 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; Nagarathna, J., opined that this is a violation of Article 14 and Article 15(1) of the Constitution 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.
“What could have been solved amicably at the village level is now given a different taint by the respondent-authorities. 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”.
Therefore, Nagarathna, J., having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and particularly bearing in mind that appellant’s father’s body is lying in the mortuary of the District Hospital since 07-01-2025 only because of the objections raised not being quelled by the Gram Panchayat, was of the view that it is just and proper that he is accorded a dignified burial.
Henceforth she directed that the appellant be allowed to conduct the funeral rites of his father in his private agricultural land at village Chhindwada at the earliest. Nagarathna, J., also directed that the appellant be accorded police protection while conducting the funeral rites. She also directed the respondent-State and its local authorities are directed to demarcate exclusive sites as graveyards for burial of Christians throughout the State in accordance with law in order to avoid controversies such as in the instant case.
Justice Satish Chandra Sharma’s Opinion:
SC Sharma, J., expressed his disagreement with Justice BV Nagarathna’s opinion. As per Sharma, J., the fulcrum of the dispute was whether the fundamental right to conduct last rites as per ones’ own specific religion or custom would extend to include the “place” where such ceremonies are scheduled to take place; and thus, in the context of the present lis — the right to choose the place of burial in a blanket and unilateral manner?
Perusing the relevant provision of Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 i.e., the Chhattisgarh Gram Panchayat (Regulating Places for Disposal of Dead Bodies, Carcasses and Other Offensive Matter) Rules, 1999, Sharma, J., explained 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”.
Therefore, Sharma, J., said that there seemed to be no need to exercise equitable jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution 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.
S.C. Sharma, J., further stated that procedures pertaining to last rites; and ceremonies involved, from a part of the right(s) protected under Part III of the Constitution; 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. It is well settled that right(s) protected under Article 21 of the Constitution are subject to “procedure established by law” which is required to be to be just, fair and reasonable.
“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. 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”.
Sharma, J., took note of the designated Christian burial site in village Karkapal, merely 20-25 KMs away from the Deceased’s native village. “In view thereof, I see no reason why the appellant ought to be permitted to claim an absolute or unqualified right in respect of the Deceased’s’ exact place of burial”.
Furthermore, Sharma, J., stated that the Court is conscious of the responsibility on its’ shoulders and would loathe to be swayed by sweeping and illusionary claims of a potential “public order” eruption, however, in the present case, it cannot be said that the Respondent State have propped up the “public order” argument as a ruse. The maintenance of “public order” is paramount and in the larger interest of the society. Accordingly, without commenting on the underlying sensitivities, and with a view a to provide the Deceased with a decent and dignified burial, Sharma, J., directed that the appellant be provided with an appropriate site in the designated burial ground in Karkapal with police protection.
Decision:
Given the lack of consensus between the Judges of the Division Bench, however, the Judges agreed to issue the following directions bearing in mind the fact that the deceased has been kept in mortuary for the last three weeks since 07-01-2025, so that the deceased is accorded an expeditious and dignified burial.
-
The appellant shall conduct the funeral rites and bury his deceased father at the burial ground at village Karkapal.
-
The respondent-State and its local authorities shall ensure that the appellant and his family are provided with all logistical support for the purpose of transferring the body of the deceased from the mortuary at the Medical College situated in Jagdalpur to the Christian burial ground situated at village Karkapal, if so desired by the appellant.
-
Adequate police protection shall be accorded in this regard.
-
The respondent-State and its authorities shall ensure that the burial of the deceased father shall take place at the earliest.
CASE DETAILS
|
Citation: Appellants : Respondents : |
Advocates who appeared in this case For Petitioner(s): For Respondent(s): |
CORAM :
Buy Constitution of India HERE
