A Division Bench of the Supreme Court on Monday delivered a split verdict on the right of a deceased Christian man from a Scheduled Tribe (ST) community to be buried in the village burial ground.
Despite their differences, Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma issued common directions to resolve the matter instead of referring it to a larger Bench.
Background of the Dispute
The dispute arose over whether the deceased could be buried in the common burial ground where his Hindu ancestors were laid to rest, given that he had converted to Christianity.
The Chhattisgarh government maintained that he should be buried in a designated Christian burial site located 20 kilometers away to avoid potential law and order concerns. Conversely, the deceased man’s son argued that his father had the right to be buried alongside his ancestors and that such discrimination should not be imposed solely due to his religious conversion.
As the judges were unable to reach a consensus on the ideal resolution, and since the body had been kept in a morgue for several days, they chose not to refer the matter to a larger Bench. Instead, they directed that the burial take place at the site 20 kilometers away, as proposed by the State.
Court’s Decision
“We do not wish to refer the matter to a third judge since the body has been in the morgue since January 7. We issue these directions under Article 142:
- The burial shall take place at the designated burial ground in village Karakwal (20 km from the deceased’s village).
- The State shall provide all necessary logistical support.
These directions aim to alleviate the suffering of the deceased’s family. Appeal disposed of,” the Court stated.
Justice Nagarathna’s Opinion
Justice Nagarathna suggested that the deceased be buried on his family’s private agricultural land, despite the State’s assertion that existing rules typically prohibit such burials. She stated that the State should ideally provide security to facilitate the burial.
“The appellant (the deceased man’s son) shall conduct the burial on his private agricultural land without claiming any benefit from this direction. The respondent (State) shall provide security for the burial. This decision is made considering the peculiar facts of the case,” she opined.
Additionally, she directed that the State must earmark burial grounds for Christians across all states within two months.
“The State shall allocate graveyards for Christians throughout all states within two months from today,” she stated.
Justice Nagarathna strongly criticized the refusal to allow the Christian man’s burial in the village ground, calling it discriminatory, unconstitutional, and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
“The affidavit submitted by the ASP states that a converted Christian cannot be buried there. This is unfortunate and amounts to religious discrimination, violating Articles 21 and 14. The State cannot deny equality before the law. Discrimination on the grounds of religion, sex, caste, etc., is prohibited under Article 15,” she emphasized.
She further criticized the attitude of the village panchayat, stating that its stance fostered “hostile discrimination.” She also condemned the State for failing to intervene against such biases, arguing that this inaction undermined the principle of secularism.
“How could the ASP of Bastar submit such an affidavit, and under what authority? This betrays the fundamental principle of secularism. Secularism, along with fraternity, fosters brotherhood among different faiths and is essential for India’s social fabric. It is the duty of the State to uphold fraternity among various communities,” she asserted.
Justice Sharma’s Dissent
Justice Sharma, however, disagreed with Justice Nagarathna’s views.
“There is no absolute right to burial. An unrestricted right could lead to public order disruptions. Maintaining public order is in the larger interest of society,” he stated.
He opined that the central issue was whether the right to religious burial ceremonies extended to burial grounds allocated for other faiths.
“Burial grounds are generally designated for specific religious communities. In this case, a burial site for Christians exists just 20 km away. Stretching Article 25 rights to claim burial in a site allocated for another faith would be an overreach. The right to freedom of religion is subject to public order, and the State can regulate such matters,” he explained.
Justice Sharma upheld the Chhattisgarh High Court’s decision, which denied permission for the deceased’s burial in the village ground. Instead, he directed the State to assist the family with transporting the body to the designated burial ground 20 km away.
“The family of the deceased shall be allotted an appropriate space in the burial ground located 20 km away. The State must provide transport and logistical support for the burial. Full police security shall be ensured to prevent any law and order issues. Appeal disposed of. The High Court’s order is upheld,” he ruled.
Case History
The dispute originated when Ramesh Bhaghel, the deceased’s son, sought permission to bury his father in their native village of Chhindawada. He argued that the village burial ground, informally allocated by the gram panchayat, had designated sections for different communities, including tribal Hindus and Christians.
However, some villagers strongly opposed the burial and even issued threats against the family. They also barred the family from burying the deceased on their private land, arguing that a Christian cannot be buried anywhere in the village.
After the Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed the plea, citing the lack of a separate Christian burial ground in the village, the petitioner moved the Supreme Court.
The High Court had noted that a designated Christian burial site was available 20–25 km away and ruled that burying the petitioner’s father in the tribal Hindu burial ground could lead to unrest and communal discord.
Following this, Bhaghel challenged the High Court’s ruling in the Supreme Court.
Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves represented the petitioner (the deceased man’s son), while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the Chhattisgarh government.