SC judges split on Christian man’s burial
In a case that laid bare a schism not only within a Chhatisgarh village but also the Supreme Court, two judges found themselves at odds over where a Christian man’s burial should take place.
In a case that laid bare a schism not only within a Chhatisgarh village but also the Supreme Court, two judges found themselves at odds over where a Christian man’s burial should take place. Justice BV Nagarathna, voicing strong condemnation against the actions of local authorities in opposing the burial in the village graveyard, and justice Satish Chandra Sharma, emphasising procedural propriety, issued contrasting opinions. Ultimately, the prolonged plight of the deceased’s family compelled the bench to permit burial outside the village in Karkapal, 20 kilometers away, as a compromise.
The dispute arose in Chhindawada village where the deceased –– a pastor, was denied burial rights either in the village graveyard or on his family’s private agricultural land because there is no Christian burial ground in the village. This denial, fuelled by opposition from local authorities and residents, forced the pastor’s son, Ramesh Baghel, a Christian convert from the Mahara caste, to approach the courts while the body languished in the mortuary since January 7. After the high court ruled on January 9 that the burial must take place in a Christian burial ground 20-25 kilometers away, Baghel appealed to the Supreme Court.
Justice Nagarathna, in a sharply worded opinion, condemned the exclusion of Baghel’s father from the village graveyard as a blatant violation of constitutional principles. To deny the burial of a person solely on the ground of their religious belief, she lamented, is to betray the sublime principles of secularism that the Indian Constitution upholds.
Quoting Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law and protection against discrimination, justice Nagarathna asserted that the actions of the gram panchayat and state authorities, including the local police, in this case smack of “hostile discrimination”.
“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 the 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,” she wrote.
Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, however, took a more cautious approach, prioritising public order and established legal procedures. He emphasised that the right to burial does not extend to an unqualified choice of the burial site, particularly when local rules designate specific areas for such purposes.
“The right to profess and practice religion under Article 25 is subject to public order,” noted the judge, adding that a person or community cannot claim an absolute or unqualified right to choose the place of burial, especially when it infringes on public health considerations and public order.
On the other hand, justice Nagarathna said that the stand taken by the panchayat, state machinery and police that no Christian can be buried in Chhindawada village “indicates a betrayal of the sublime principles of secularism and the glorious traditions of our country which believes in Sarva Dharma Samanvaya or Sarva Dharma Sambhava –– the essence of secularism.”
“Secularism together with the concept of fraternity as engaged under our Constitution is a reflection of harmony between all religious faiths leading to common brotherhood and unity of the social fabric in the country. It is therefore incumbent on all citizens as well as institutions, whether of governance or otherwise, to foster fraternity amongst the citizens. It is brotherhood and fraternity among citizens, which would make the country stronger and more cohesive given the diversity of the land and the need for unity,” stressed the judge, holding that Baghel could carry out last rites of his father in the private land owned by the family.
Meanwhile, Justice Sharma underscored procedural requirements under the Chhattisgarh Panchayati Raj Act and its accompanying rules, which mandate the use of designated burial grounds to maintain public health and order.
“While there can be no doubt about the fact that procedures pertaining to last rites and ceremonies involved are a part of the rights protected under Part three of the Constitution of India (fundamental rights), to claim that such rights would encompass the unqualified right to choose the place and days of such ceremony, including burial places, would primer facie appear to stretch constitutional limits beyond what was envisaged,” he held.
While recognising the petitioner’s plight, he finally ruled that the designated Christian burial ground in Karkapal village, 20 kilometers away, was a reasonable alternative. “The maintenance of public order is paramount, and the state has a duty to provide suitable burial sites within reason and rationality,” he said.
Faced with an impasse, the two-judge bench agreed to a compromise. Justice Nagarathna, despite her strong dissent, accepted the burial in Karkapal village for the sake of expediency, noting the family’s prolonged agony. She pointed out that referring the matter to a three-judge bench would entail further delays in the burial, adding “judicial stewardship” requires the Supreme Court to order for immediate and dignified burial of the deceased. The court ordered the state to ensure all logistical support and police protection for the burial.
The ruling also underscored the need for systemic reforms. Justice Nagarathna directed the state to identify and allocate burial sites for Christians across Chhattisgarh within two months to avoid similar disputes.
