Case Study: Ramesh Baghel v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others

In Ramesh Baghel v. State of Chhattisgarh, the Supreme Court upheld burial rights as integral to dignity under Article 21, balancing equality and secularism with public order. The split verdict addressed constitutional principles versus adherence to statutory rules.

"Burial rights must balance constitutional guarantees of dignity, equality, and secularism with statutory regulations and public order considerations, ensuring non-discrimination in access to burial grounds."

Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 23 of 2016

Date of Judgment: 27th January, 2025

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: B.V. Nagarathna (J), Satish Chandra Sharma (J)

Facts

  • The petitioner, a Christian tribal man from Chhindwada village, sought permission to bury his deceased father, a pastor, in either the burial ground used by their community in the village or on his private agricultural land. The village Gram Panchayat and other villagers objected, stating that the existing burial ground was for Hindu tribal members and not for Christians. An alternative burial ground for Christians was in Karkapal village, 20–25 kilometers away, designated by the State.
  • When villagers opposed the burial, the petitioner approached the Chhattisgarh High Court, seeking directions to allow the burial in the native village. The High Court dismissed the plea and directed the petitioner to use the burial ground in Karkapal village.
  • The petitioner argued that the burial should take place in the native village where their ancestors were buried, as per tribal customs. Alternatively, the petitioner requested permission to bury his father on private agricultural land within Chhindwada village.
  • The Gram Panchayat and State maintained that burials could only occur in designated areas as per Chhattisgarh Panchayat Rules. They contended that using non-designated areas, even private land, could set a dangerous precedent and cause unrest.

Decision of the High Court

The appellant initially approached the Chhattisgarh High Court, seeking permission to bury his father either on private agricultural land in Chhindwada or in the existing burial ground used by the Mahra tribal community in the village. The appellant argued that his family members, including his grandfather and aunt, had been buried in the same burial ground, and the refusal to allow burial there was discriminatory and unconstitutional.

The High Court denied the appellant’s plea, directing that the burial could only take place at the designated Christian burial ground in Karkapal village, located 20-25 kilometers from Chhindwada.

The High Court reasoned that there was no separate burial ground for Christians in Chhindwada village and upheld the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Rules, which mandate that burials must occur in designated areas to maintain public order and avoid unrest. The court also observed that allowing the burial in Chhindwada could cause “disharmony” and unrest among the villagers, citing the objections raised by the Gram Panchayat and local community members.

Decision of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court delivered a split verdict on the plea of a Christian man from Chhattisgarh who sought permission to bury his deceased father either on private agricultural land in Chhindwada or in the village burial ground traditionally used by the Mahra tribal community. The Court was confronted with constitutional questions regarding equality, secularism, and administrative rules. The split decision reflects differing views on balancing individual rights and public order.

1. Justice B.V. Nagarathna’s Decision 

Justice Nagarathna permitted the appellant to bury his father on private agricultural land in Chhindwada. She observed that denying this request violated constitutional principles of secularism, equality (Article 14), and non-discrimination (Article 15). She held that the refusal to allocate a burial ground for Christians within Chhindwada village represented a failure of governance and a breach of constitutional rights.

Justice Nagarathna criticized the Gram Panchayat for neglecting its duty to provide an equitable solution to the burial issue. She emphasized that the Panchayat’s refusal to allocate a burial ground for Christians was discriminatory and reflected a biased attitude. She also criticized the State government for taking sides instead of ensuring the burial took place promptly and peacefully.

Justice Nagarathna invoked Article 14 (equality before the law) and Article 15 (prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion) to highlight that no community should face discrimination in accessing basic facilities, such as burial grounds. She stated that the actions of the Panchayat and the State created a sense of exclusion for Christians.

Justice Nagarathna emphasized that secularism and fraternity are fundamental pillars of the Indian Constitution, and both individuals and the State are bound to uphold these principles. She noted that resolving such disputes at the village level with mutual respect would foster harmony among communities.

Justice Nagarathna issued the following key directions:

  • The appellant was permitted to bury his father on his private agricultural land in Chhindwada.
  • The State and local authorities were directed to provide adequate police protection to ensure a peaceful burial.
  • The Gram Panchayat and State were instructed to demarcate and allocate burial grounds for Christians across the State within two months to prevent similar disputes in the future.

2. Justice Satish Chandra Sharma’s Decision

Justice Sharma upheld the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Rules, which mandate that burials occur only in designated burial grounds. He agreed with the High Court’s decision that the burial should take place at the Christian burial ground in Karkapal village, approximately 20–25 kilometers from Chhindwada.

Justice Sharma disagreed with the appellant’s request to bury his father on private agricultural land. He stated that allowing private land burials would set a problematic precedent, leading to potential disputes and undermining public order. Justice Sharma emphasized that the Panchayat Rules and the designation of burial grounds are essential for maintaining public order and hygiene. Allowing burials outside designated areas could disrupt community relations and create unnecessary legal and administrative challenges.

Justice Sharma fully endorsed the High Court’s reasoning that using the designated burial ground in Karkapal ensured compliance with the law while preventing unrest in Chhindwada. Justice Sharma directed the State to provide logistical support and police protection to the appellant’s family for the burial at Karkapal.

Despite their differing views, both judges agreed not to refer the matter to a larger bench due to the prolonged delay and the need for an urgent resolution. Exercising their powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the bench issued a consensual order:

  1. The appellant was directed to bury his father at the designated Christian burial ground in Karkapal village.
  2. The State and local authorities were instructed to provide logistical support and police protection for the burial to take place peacefully.
  3. The order was issued considering the unique facts of the case and to alleviate the family’s suffering. It was explicitly stated that the decision should not serve as a general precedent.

The Court expressed concern over the undue delay caused by bureaucratic and social hurdles, emphasizing the importance of granting the deceased a dignified and timely burial. Justice Nagarathna prioritized constitutional rights and equality, while Justice Sharma emphasized adherence to established rules and public order.

The Court invoked Article 142 to issue an order that reconciled the conflicting interests of the parties and ensured an expeditious resolution.

1. Does the Gram Panchayat’s refusal violate constitutional principles of article 14, 15(1), equality and secularism?

Yes

The Supreme court held that Gram Panchayat’s refusal to permit the burial of the appellant’s father in Chhindwada village violated Articles 14 and 15, as it discriminated based on religion and ignored the constitutional mandate of secularism. Justice Nagarathna’s observations strongly criticized the exclusionary practices of the Panchayat, reaffirming the importance of equality, tolerance, and fraternity in India’s constitutional framework. The State’s failure to address the issue equitably and expeditiously further exacerbated the violation of fundamental rights

The Supreme Court, in addressing the Gram Panchayat’s refusal to allow the burial of the appellant’s father in Chhindwada village, identified the actions of the Gram Panchayat as violative of the constitutional principles of equality (Article 14) and secularism. Justice B.V. Nagarathna’s opinion strongly emphasized that the refusal to provide burial rights based on religion discriminated against the Christian community and undermined the constitutional ethos of fraternity and secularism.

The Court in paragraph 22.10 held that the refusal to allow the burial of the appellant’s father in the Mahra tribal burial ground amounted to arbitrary discrimination based on religion. The burial ground in question was used historically by the Mahra community, to which the appellant’s family belonged, before they converted to Christianity. By denying the appellant access to this burial ground, the Gram Panchayat treated him unequally solely due to his religion.

“…. the affidavit of the ASP, Bastar, states “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”. This declaration by the respondents is unfortunate. To my mind, this is nothing but a violation of Article 14 and Article 15(1) of the Constitution of India 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.”

The court underscored that the Constitution mandates equality before the law and prohibits discrimination on arbitrary grounds, including religion. It observed that treating members of the same community differently after conversion to Christianity violates the core principles of equality.

The Court strongly criticized the actions of the Gram Panchayat and local authorities for failing to uphold the principles of secularism and fraternity, which are foundational to India’s constitutional framework. Justice Nagarathna noted that the Preamble to the Constitution explicitly commits to secularism, ensuring all communities are treated equally irrespective of religion. Court in 22.11 observed that

It is not known as to under what authority such a declaration could have been made by the deponent, who is the ASP, Bastar whose duty is to maintain law and order and ensure peace and harmony in the society. What is the basis for such a declaration? Such an attitude on the part of local authorities, at the village level or higher level, indicates a betrayal of the sublime principles of secularism and the glorious traditions of our country which believes in “Sarva Dharma Samanvaya/Sarva Dharma Samabhava” which is the essence of secularism. Secularism together with the concept of fraternity, as envisaged 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

Justice Nagarathna in paragraph 25 of the judgment referred to the observation made in Ashwini Upadhyay v. Union of India[1], which reiterates India’s commitment to secularism and safeguarding the fundamental rights of all communities. She further invoked the famous quote from Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala[2].

The judgment observed that the Gram Panchayat failed in its duty to ensure equitable treatment for all residents of the village, irrespective of religion. It abdicated its responsibility to provide a fair solution, which exacerbated tensions and caused the appellant and his family significant emotional distress.

2. Can burials occur on private land in the absence of a designated burial ground?

Yes (Justice B.V. Nagarathna) / No (Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)

The Supreme Court delivered a split verdict on whether burials could take place on private land in the absence of a designated burial ground. Justice B.V. Nagarathna supported the appellant's request to bury his father on private land, citing constitutional principles of equality, secularism, and the need for practical solutions. Conversely, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma denied the claim, emphasizing adherence to statutory rules and the potential for public disorder.

1. Justice B.V. Nagarathna’s View: 

Yes, Burials Can Occur on Private Land

Justice Nagarathna held that in the absence of a designated burial ground, it is reasonable and lawful to permit burials on private agricultural land, provided it does not violate public health or order. She emphasized the constitutional principles of secularism, equality, and fraternity in justifying her stance. In paragraph 22.11justice Nagarathna observed that

“…attitude on the part of local authorities, at the village level or higher level, indicates a betrayal of the sublime principles of secularism and the glorious traditions of our country which believes in “Sarva Dharma Samanvaya/Sarva Dharma Samabhava” which is the essence of secularism. Secularism together with the concept of fraternity, as envisaged 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”

Justice Nagarathna stated that the refusal of the Gram Panchayat and State to provide a burial ground for Christians in Chhindwada village left the appellant with no choice but to seek burial on private land. She observed that this request was reasonable and equitable under the circumstances. In paragraph number 22.9 court noted 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 has 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.”

Further in paragraph number 22.9 the court observed that the refusal to permit private burial was seen as discriminatory under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. Justice Nagarathna argued that forcing the appellant to travel 20–25 kilometers to Karkapal for burial violated his right to equality and dignity.

Contra suggestion made on behalf of the respondent-State is that the appellant could conduct funeral rites of his father at the burial ground at Karkapal which is about 20-25 or 40-45 kms away from the village in which the appellant resides. This option was in any case available to the appellant. On the other hand, the appellant sought permission to bury his father either in the area orally demarcated for the Christian community in the graveyard reserved for the Mahra Christian community in Chhindwada village or alternatively, in the agricultural land of the appellant herein. It is for this reason that the appellant approached the High Court. This grievance of the appellant has not been appreciated by the High Court which instead directed the appellant to conduct the funeral and bury his father 20-25 or more kms away from his village. The appellant need not have approached the High Court if he had exercised the said option.”

“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”

Justice Nagarathna highlighted that there were no public health or public order issues arising from the burial on private agricultural land. She stressed that the burial would be conducted peacefully and respectfully, with adequate police protection. Justice Nagarathna also directed the State to demarcate burial grounds for Christians across the State within two months, emphasizing that such disputes must be avoided in the future

2. Justice Satish Chandra Sharma’s View: 

No, Burials Cannot Occur on Private Land

Justice Sharma disagreed with Justice Nagarathna, holding that burials must adhere to the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Rules, which mandate that burials occur only in designated areas to maintain public health, order, and harmony. He emphasized that permitting burials on private land would create precedential issues and disrupt established legal norms. In paragraph 17 Justice Sharma observed that

A perusal of the CG Rules would reveal that graves cannot be arbitrarily constructed; and must be established in designated areas identified by the Gram Panchayat.”

In paragraph 17 Justice Sharma argued that granting permission for private land burials could lead to community tensions and public unrest. He noted that designated burial grounds are essential for maintaining harmony among diverse communities.

A perusal of the CG Rules would reveal 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[3]. 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. Thus, with the respect, I am unable to appreciate the need to exercise of our equitable jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India 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.”

Justice Sharma emphasizes that the right to perform last rites and related ceremonies is protected under Part III of the Constitution, particularly under Article 21, which ensures the right to life and dignity. However, it clarifies that this right does not extend to an absolute or unqualified right to choose the specific place for such ceremonies, including burial.

Justice Sharma in paragraph 18 notes that rights under Article 21 are subject to the "procedure established by law," which must be just, fair, and reasonable. Similarly, the freedom to profess, practice, and propagate religion under Article 25 is subject to "public order," and the State can regulate activities associated with religious practices. While denying a person or community a place to perform last rites would violate constitutional principles, the State is obligated to provide reasonable and rationally designated spaces for such purposes. In the present case, the State has identified a burial ground for the Christian community within 20–25 kilometers of the deceased's native village, and the court finds no justification for the appellant to demand an unqualified right to bury the deceased at a specific location.

There can be no qualm about the fact that procedures pertaining to last rites; and ceremonies involved, from a part of the right(s) protected under Part III of the Constitution of India. 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 of India are subject to “procedure established by law” which is required to be to be just, fair and reasonable.[4] Furthermore, the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion under Article 25, is ex facie subject to “public order”[5] ; and the Sub Clause 2 of Article 25 enables the State to frame provisions regulating certain activities associated with religious practices[6] . Thus, 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. In the present case, the Respondent State has informed us of an identified burial ground for members of the Christian Community i.e., the Designated Christian Burial Ground situated in village Karkapal merely at a distance of 20-25KM 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.”

Note: Despite their differing views, the bench issued a consensual order under Article 142 of the Constitution to resolve the matter expeditiously:

  1. The burial was directed to take place at the designated Christian burial ground in Karkapal village.
  2. The State and local authorities were instructed to provide logistical support and police protection to ensure a peaceful burial.
  3. The Court clarified that the order was specific to the facts of the case and was not intended to set a broader precedent.

[1] (2023) 8 SCC 402.

[2] (1986) 3 SCC 615.

[3] The Impact of Cemeteries on the Environment and Public Health, WHO, EUR/ICP/EHNA010401(A)

[4] Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 SCR (2) 621; and K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.

[5] Rev. Stainislaus vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1977) 1 SCC 677.

[6] Sri Venkataramana Devarua v. State of Mysore, AIR 1958 SC 255.

Download

Harish Khan
Case Study: Saipem S.p.A. v. The People’s Republic of Bangladesh
In Saipem S.p.A. v. Bangladesh, ICSID ruled that judicial interference leading to loss of contractual rights is indirect expropriation. This case broadened protection for foreign investors under international investment law.
Anish Sinha
Case Study: Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & anr.
The Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025) ruled the arrest unconstitutional, citing violations of Article 22(1). It held that merely informing the accused’s wife does not fulfill legal requirements, reinforcing safeguards against unlawful detention.
Anish Sinha
Case Study: Smt. N. Usha Rani and Anr. v. Moodudula Srinivas
The Supreme Court in Smt. N. Usha Rani & Anr. v. Moodudula Srinivas (2025) upheld maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., ruling that even in a void marriage, a woman is entitled to financial support if separation from her first husband is evident and prevents destitution.
Or
Powered by Lit Law
New Chat
Sources
No Sources Available
Ask AI