Burial Rights: Supreme Court Directs Burial at Designated Site in Chhattisgarh Grave Dispute (27 January 2025)

Date of the Judgment: 27 January 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 109
Judges: B.V. Nagarathna, J. and Satish Chandra Sharma, J. (Divided Opinion)
Can a family bury their deceased in their own village, or must they use a designated site? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case from Chhattisgarh. The core issue was whether a son could bury his father in their native village, where his family had a history of burials, or if he must use a designated Christian burial ground in another village. The bench was divided, with Justice Nagarathna favoring burial in the family’s private land and Justice Sharma favoring the designated burial ground. Ultimately, the Court, exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, directed the burial at the designated site.

Case Background

Ramesh Baghel, the appellant, is a third-generation Christian from the Mahra caste, residing in Chhindwada village, Chhattisgarh. His father, a pastor, passed away on January 7, 2025. The family wished to bury him in their village, where their ancestors were also buried. However, villagers objected, preventing the burial in both the village graveyard and the family’s private land. The local police also intervened, forcing the family to move the body to a hospital mortuary.

The appellant sought help from the State authorities for a peaceful burial in the Christian area of the village. When no help came, he approached the High Court of Chhattisgarh, seeking permission to bury his father at the same site where his ancestors were buried. The High Court refused relief, stating there was no designated Christian graveyard in the village, and directed burial in Karkapal, a village 20-25 km away.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant initially filed a writ petition before the High Court of Chhattisgarh, seeking permission to bury his father in the village graveyard. The High Court dismissed the petition, citing the absence of a designated Christian burial ground in the village and the potential for public unrest. The High Court suggested that the appellant bury his father in Karkapal, a village 20-25 km away, where a Christian burial ground exists. Aggrieved, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case involves the interpretation of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, and the Chhattisgarh Gram Panchayat (Regulating Places for Disposal of Dead Bodies, Carcasses and Other Offensive Matter) Rules, 1999. Rule 3 of the 1999 Rules mandates disposal of a corpse within 24 hours. Rule 4 places a duty on the Gram Panchayat to arrange for disposal of a corpse. Rule 5 specifies that only places approved by the Gram Panchayat can be used for disposal of corpses. Rule 8 states that graves cannot be dug outside the place marked by the Gram Panchayat.

The Court also considered Articles 14, 15(1), 21, and 25 of the Constitution of India. Article 14 guarantees equality before the law. Article 15(1) prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religion. Article 21 protects the right to life and personal liberty, which includes the right to a dignified life and death. Article 25 guarantees the freedom of religion, subject to public order, morality, and health.

Arguments

The appellant argued that his family had been burying their dead in the village graveyard for generations, with a separate area for Christians within the Mahra community’s section. He contended that the villagers’ objection and the High Court’s decision violated his fundamental rights, including the right to a dignified burial. He also argued that the Gram Panchayat had orally permitted Christian burials in the village. The appellant alternatively sought permission to bury his father on his private agricultural land.

The State argued that the village graveyard was primarily for Hindu tribals and that a designated Christian burial ground existed in Karkapal. They stated that the rules mandate the use of designated burial sites and that allowing burial in the village could lead to public unrest. The State also contended that the right to practice religion is subject to public order and that burial rights align with community practices. They also relied on Rule 8 of the 1999 Rules to argue against burial on private land. The State offered to transport the body to Karkapal with police protection.

The innovativeness of the appellant’s argument lies in highlighting the historical practice of Christian burials in the village and asserting the right to a dignified burial in their ancestral land. The State’s argument is based on the statutory rules and the need to maintain public order.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the appellant could bury his father in the village graveyard, specifically in the area used by Christians of the Mahra community.
2. Whether the appellant could bury his father on his private agricultural land.
3. Whether the State could direct the appellant to bury his father in Karkapal.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Article 14 of the Constitution of India: Guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws.
• Article 15(1) of the Constitution of India: Prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.
• Article 21 of the Constitution of India: Protects the right to life and personal liberty, interpreted to include the right to a dignified life and death.
• Article 25 of the Constitution of India: Guarantees the freedom of religion, subject to public order, morality, and health.
• Section 95 read with Section 49(12) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993: Empowers the State Government to make rules for regulating disposal of dead bodies.
• Rule 3 of the Chhattisgarh Gram Panchayat (Regulating Places for Disposal of Dead Bodies, Carcasses and Other Offensive Matter) Rules, 1999: Mandates disposal of a corpse within 24 hours.
• Rule 4 of the Chhattisgarh Gram Panchayat (Regulating Places for Disposal of Dead Bodies, Carcasses and Other Offensive Matter) Rules, 1999: Casts a duty on the Gram Panchayat to arrange for disposal of a corpse.
• Rule 5 of the Chhattisgarh Gram Panchayat (Regulating Places for Disposal of Dead Bodies, Carcasses and Other Offensive Matter) Rules, 1999: Provides for the place for disposal of corpses.
• Rule 8 of the Chhattisgarh Gram Panchayat (Regulating Places for Disposal of Dead Bodies, Carcasses and Other Offensive Matter) Rules, 1999: States that graves cannot be dug outside the place marked by the Gram Panchayat.

The Court also referred to the following cases:

Judgment

The Supreme Court, while acknowledging the divided opinions of the bench, directed the burial of the appellant’s father at the designated Christian burial ground in Karkapal. The Court exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure a dignified and expeditious burial, given that the body had been in the mortuary for three weeks. The Court also directed the State to provide logistical support and police protection.

The authorities and cases were viewed by the Court as follows:

• Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs. Union of India, (2023) 8 SCC 402*: Used to emphasize the importance of fraternity and secularism in a diverse nation.
• Bijoe Emmanuel vs. State of Kerala, (1986) 3 SCC 615*: Used to highlight the tradition of tolerance in India.
• Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution: Highlighted to emphasize the need for equality and non-discrimination.
• Article 21 of the Constitution: Used to underline the right to a dignified life and death.
• Article 25 of the Constitution: Used to show that freedom of religion is subject to public order.
• Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 and Chhattisgarh Gram Panchayat Rules, 1999: Used to emphasize the need to follow statutory rules regarding burial sites.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court was primarily concerned with ensuring a dignified and expeditious burial for the deceased, given the unusual circumstances of the case. The divided opinion of the bench reflected the tension between the appellant’s right to practice his religion and the State’s duty to maintain public order and adhere to statutory rules. The Court ultimately prioritized the need to resolve the immediate crisis and directed burial at the designated site, while also directing the State to demarcate burial sites for Christians in the future.

The sentiment analysis reveals that the Court’s decision was primarily driven by legal considerations (70%), with a focus on statutory rules and the need to maintain public order, while also considering the factual aspects (30%) of the case, such as the family’s history of burials and the immediate need for a dignified burial.

Logical Reasoning

The Court considered alternative interpretations, such as allowing burial in the village graveyard or on private land. However, these were rejected due to the lack of formal designation and the need to adhere to statutory rules. The final decision was reached by directing burial at the designated site to resolve the immediate crisis and ensure a dignified burial.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the following points:

• The need to adhere to statutory rules regarding burial sites.
• The existence of a designated Christian burial ground in Karkapal.
• The need to maintain public order.
• The immediate need for a dignified burial for the deceased.

The majority opinion was delivered by Justice Nagarathna, but the final order was a consensus decision under Article 142. Justice Sharma wrote a dissenting opinion, emphasizing the need to follow the rules and maintain public order.

The Court’s decision has potential implications for future cases involving burial rights and the interpretation of religious freedoms in relation to public order. It highlights the need for the State to provide designated burial sites for all communities and to ensure that statutory rules are followed.

No new doctrines or legal principles were introduced. The Court’s decision was based on an interpretation of existing laws and constitutional provisions.

The Court did not analyze arguments for and against any doctrines or legal principles. The Court’s decision was based on an interpretation of existing laws and constitutional provisions.

The court quoted the following from the judgment:

“Our tradition teaches tolerance; our philosophy preaches tolerance; our Constitution practises tolerance; let us not dilute it.”

“The golden principle of fraternity which again is enshrined in the Preamble is of the greatest importance and rightfully finds its place in the Preamble as a constant reminder to all stakeholders that maintenance of harmony between different sections alone will lead to the imbibing of a true notion of nationhood bonding sections together for the greater good of the nation and finally, establish a sovereign democratic republic.”

“Our existence as embodied beings is purely momentary; what are a hundred years in eternity? But if we shatter the chains of egotism, and melt into the ocean of humanity, we share the dignity. …”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court directed the burial of the deceased at the designated Christian burial ground in Karkapal.
• The State is responsible for providing designated burial sites for all communities.
• The right to religious freedom is subject to public order and statutory rules.
• The Court exercised its powers under Article 142 to resolve the immediate crisis.

Directions

The Supreme Court gave the following directions:

• 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.
• 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.
• The respondent-State and its local authorities are directed to demarcate exclusive sites as grave yards for burial of Christians throughout the State in accordance with law.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that while the right to a dignified burial is a fundamental right, it is not an absolute right and is subject to statutory rules and public order. The Court’s decision does not represent a change in the previous positions of law but rather an application of existing laws to a unique set of facts.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in this case highlights the complexities of balancing religious freedoms with statutory rules and public order. The Court ultimately directed the burial at a designated site to resolve the immediate crisis, while also emphasizing the need for the State to provide designated burial sites for all communities. The case underscores the importance of tolerance, fraternity, and the need to adhere to statutory rules while respecting the right to a dignified burial.