Right to Burial in village graveyard, Supreme Court upholds Right to Dignity for Tribal Christian Pastor

Introduction

On January 27, 2025, the Supreme Court delivered a significant ruling in a case concerning the burial rights of a tribal Christian pastor in Chhindwara village, Chhattisgarh. The Court directed the State government to allow the burial in the village graveyard, rejecting objections based on religious conversion and emphasizing the right to dignity in death as an essential constitutional value.

The judgment came after weeks of legal battle following the rejection of the petitioner’s plea by the Chhattisgarh High Court. The case, which began as a local dispute, evolved into a matter of national significance, addressing issues of religious discrimination, communal harmony, and the rights of tribal and converted communities. The Supreme Court’s intervention not only resolved a deeply personal matter for the petitioner but also reaffirmed India's commitment to secularism, equality, and the protection of fundamental rights.

A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, while delivering the judgment, lamented the failure of the State and the High Court to resolve the matter, forcing the petitioner to approach the apex court. The Court criticized the State’s reliance on communal arguments and public order concerns, deeming such justifications as insufficient to deny a basic human right. 

Background of the Case

The petitioner, a tribal Christian, filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court after the Chhattisgarh High Court, on January 9, 2025, rejected his plea to bury his father in the village graveyard. The deceased, a pastor, had lived his entire life in Chhindwara village before passing away on January 7, 2025, due to prolonged illness.

The petitioner sought to bury his father in the area traditionally allocated for Christian tribals within the Chhindwara village graveyard, where other members of the family, including the pastor’s aunt and grandfather, had been buried. However, local villagers, allegedly instigated by communal elements, objected to the burial, claiming that converted Christians should no longer have access to the village graveyard.

When the villagers became hostile and threatened violence, the petitioner approached the police, who reportedly pressured the family to transport the body to a designated burial ground 20-30 kilometers away in Karkapal village. The body has been lying in the mortuary since January 7, awaiting resolution.

Judgment Highlights: Dignity and Equality in Focus

The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case stands as a defining moment in India’s jurisprudence, offering a comprehensive exploration of constitutional values such as human dignity, religious freedom, secularism, and equality. The judgment not only resolves the specific dispute over the burial of the petitioner’s father but also addresses critical questions regarding the rights of individuals to practice their religion freely without fear of exclusion or discrimination. The key judicial highlights of this ruling are as follows:

1. Right to Dignity Under Article 21: The Court emphasized that dignity is an essential facet of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. In a remarkable interpretation, the Court underscored that dignity is not restricted to the living but extends to the dead, recognizing that every individual has the right to a dignified burial, free from communal or caste-based discrimination. This right, the Court held, forms an intrinsic part of a person’s fundamental rights, asserting that injustice to the dead is as unacceptable as injustice to the living.
2. Secularism and the Protection of Religious Rights: The Court strongly reaffirmed the secular nature of the Indian State, highlighting that religious practices or local customs cannot be allowed to override constitutional guarantees. The bench declared that the petitioner, a Christian tribal, has the right to bury his father in his native village according to his religious customs, without being subject to discriminatory practices or forced relocation based on his religious conversion. This powerful declaration reasserted India’s constitutional commitment to toleration, coexistence, and respect for diverse religious practices in a multi-religious society.
3. Rejection of Caste-Based and Religious Discrimination: The Court rejected the State's argument that the petitioner’s religious conversion was a valid reason for barring him from using the village’s burial ground. The ruling specifically condemned caste-based and religious discrimination, emphasizing that conversions should not result in ostracization or alienation from one’s community. In its observation, the Court highlighted that historical practices of allowing Christian tribals to be buried in the same graveyard as Hindu tribals should not be disturbed, thus preventing the balkanization of society on religious lines.
4. Inaction by Local Authorities and the High Court: A critical element of the judgment was the Court's disappointment with the inaction of both the Chhattisgarh State Government and the Chhattisgarh High Court in resolving the matter. The Supreme Court sharply criticized the High Court's approach, stating that its decision to defer the matter under the pretext of public order concerns was an abdication of its duty to protect fundamental rights. The Court called for more decisive action from the State and local authorities to protect the rights of vulnerable individuals, instead of allowing issues of religious identity to escalate into communal conflicts.
5. The Need for Amicable Resolution: The Supreme Court stressed the importance of resolving disputes like these through amicable means rather than litigation. By emphasizing that the right to a dignified burial should be paramount, the Court urged the State government to mediate between the parties to ensure that justice is delivered without creating unnecessary tensions in the community. It reflected the Court’s broader concern about the long-term impact of such cases on social harmony and emphasized that human dignity must always be the guiding principle when resolving conflicts between individuals and communities.
6. Securing Protection for Religious Minorities: The Court’s decision further reinforced its role in protecting religious minorities from practices that attempt to marginalize or exclude them from mainstream society. The ruling made clear that State-sponsored segregation based on religion, whether in public spaces, burial grounds, or other facilities violates the principle of equality and cannot be justified under the guise of tradition or religious customs.
7. Future Precedent and Broader Implications: In addressing the broader social and legal implications, the Court set a precedent for dealing with religious discrimination and communal tensions in the future. By rejecting the State’s argument about creating a precedent that would apply nationally, the Court implicitly acknowledged that local traditions or customs cannot trump constitutional guarantees. This judgment sets a high bar for similar cases in the future, ensuring that religious rights, dignity, and equality will be safeguarded against any forms of communal or caste-based exclusion.
8. The Court’s Assertion of Judicial Responsibility: The judgment was a stern reminder of the judicial duty to intervene and protect individuals when their fundamental rights are under threat, particularly when local authorities fail to act. The Court noted that local governments should take proactive steps to uphold the constitutional values of justice and equity. By observing that this case had to be brought before the Supreme Court, the Court reaffirmed its role as the ultimate guardian of citizens' rights and warned local authorities not to neglect their responsibilities.

State’s Position: A Defense Rooted in Public Order, Custom, and Religious Segregation

The State of Chhattisgarh, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and the State’s Advocate General, presented a three-pronged argument defending its decision to prevent the burial in Chhindwara.

1. Reliance on Tribal Custom and Practices 

The State contended that the graveyard in Chhindwara village was traditionally reserved for Hindu tribal residents, in line with tribal customs. According to the State, there was an unwritten yet established segregation of burial grounds, with Christian tribals being allocated a separate burial ground in Karkapal village, located 20-30 kilometers away.

The State argued that this arrangement had functioned peacefully for decades and that Christian conversions had disrupted the social and cultural harmony of tribal communities. The Solicitor General submitted that the deceased pastor, having converted to Christianity, could no longer claim burial rights in the Hindu tribal burial ground.

Mehta emphasized that conversions create distinct cultural identities, necessitating separate burial grounds. He argued that permitting Christian converts to be buried in Chhindwara would amount to imposing an alien practice on Hindu tribals, leading to resentment and unrest.

2. Public Order Concerns 

The State further justified its decision by invoking public order concerns. It argued that objections raised by local Hindu tribal residents were genuine and reflected deeply held grievances about the perceived erosion of cultural practices. The State warned that allowing the burial in Chhindwara would trigger communal tensions and potentially escalate into violence.

Mehta submitted that the State was acting to prevent a law-and-order situation and not out of discrimination against the Christian tribal community. He also expressed concern about the national implications of the case, arguing that a favorable ruling for the petitioner could set a precedent for similar disputes across India, destabilizing established practices in tribal regions.

3. Opposition to Private Land Burial 

When the Supreme Court suggested the alternative of permitting the petitioner to bury his father on private land, the State opposed this as well. Mehta contended that burial on private land would change the “character of the land”, rendering it sacred and potentially leading to disputes over its use in the future. He insisted that burials should be confined to designated graveyards, in accordance with local rules.

4. Support from Statutory Rules

The State cited statutory provisions that purportedly restricted burials to designated areas and excluded converted Christians from village burial grounds. It argued that these rules reflected the sociocultural fabric of tribal communities and should be respected to preserve communal harmony.

Petitioner’s Arguments: Fighting Discrimination and Upholding Dignity

The petitioner, represented by Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, strongly contested the State’s position, asserting that the denial of burial rights was unconstitutional and violated the deceased pastor’s dignity and the family’s freedom of religion.

1. Historical Precedent in Chhindwara: The petitioner argued that Christian tribals had been buried in the Chhindwara village graveyard for decades without objection. Gonsalves presented revenue maps and photographs showing the graves of the pastor’s aunt and grandfather, both buried in the same graveyard. He contended that the objections in this case were manufactured and driven by a growing communalization of tribal communities.
2. Religious Conversion as a Pretext for Discrimination: Gonsalves accused the State of using the pastor’s conversion to Christianity as a pretext for denying burial rights. He pointed to the State’s counter-affidavit, which explicitly admitted that converted Christians were excluded from village burial grounds. He argued that this amounted to blatant religious discrimination, violating Articles 14, 15, and 25 of the Constitution.
3. Right to Dignity and Equality: The petitioner emphasized that the right to dignity in death is a fundamental aspect of Article 21. Gonsalves argued that the deceased pastor, having lived his entire life in Chhindwara, had an inalienable right to be buried in the village. He also asserted that religious conversion does not extinguish a person’s rights under the Constitution.
4. Challenging Public Order Claims: Gonsalves dismissed the State’s public order concerns as a red herring, arguing that the objections raised by villagers were instigated by communal forces seeking to exclude Christian tribals. He warned that permitting such discrimination would embolden communal elements and set a dangerous precedent, leading to widespread marginalization of converted communities.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court’s observations in this case went beyond resolving a specific burial dispute and delved deeply into broader constitutional principles, touching upon the sanctity of fundamental rights, secularism, and human dignity. The bench, comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, delivered an emphatic critique of the State of Chhattisgarh and the Chhattisgarh High Court, while simultaneously reinforcing the need for robust protection of fundamental rights, particularly in matters involving marginalized communities.

1. Right to Dignity in Death

The Court placed the right to dignity in death at the heart of its reasoning, declaring it a fundamental facet of Article 21 of the Constitution. Justice Nagarathna, in her observations, emphasized:

"Dignity is not a privilege bestowed upon certain sections of society—it is an inalienable right of every individual, guaranteed by the Constitution. This dignity does not terminate with life but continues in death. Denying the deceased a dignified burial amounts to a grave transgression of constitutional principles."

The Court stated unequivocally that conversion to Christianity or any other religion does not strip an individual of their right to equality or dignity. It called out the State’s defense as an attempt to normalize discriminatory practices under the garb of local customs and public order.

2. Rejection of Public Order as a Shield for Discrimination 

The Court dismantled the State’s reliance on public order concerns, terming it a “misplaced and convenient justification”. Justice Nagarathna remarked:

"The invocation of public order to perpetuate exclusionary practices is deeply troubling. Public order cannot become a tool to legitimize discrimination, especially in a nation that prides itself on secularism and diversity."

The bench also observed that customs and practices that promote segregation based on religion or conversion cannot override constitutional guarantees. The Court reminded the State that governance is not about succumbing to communal pressures but about safeguarding the rights of every citizen, regardless of caste, religion, or creed.

3. Condemnation of the State and High Court’s Inaction 

The Court was scathing in its criticism of the State of Chhattisgarh and the Chhattisgarh High Court. It lamented the fact that such a straightforward issue—ensuring a dignified burial—had to escalate to the apex court. Justice Nagarathna noted:

"The inability of the State and the High Court to resolve this issue reflects a systemic failure to protect fundamental rights. The High Court's reliance on public order concerns instead of addressing the constitutional violation is deeply regrettable. Courts are the guardians of fundamental rights, not passive observers of discriminatory practices."

4. Upholding Secularism 

The judgment firmly upheld the principle of secularism, noting that India’s secular framework does not allow for communal division of rights, whether in life or death. The bench observed:

"The Constitution envisions an India where differences of faith or belief are celebrated, not grounds for exclusion. To deny a person burial on the basis of religion or conversion is a direct affront to this vision."

The Court criticized the State’s counter-affidavit, which admitted that converted Christians were excluded from burial grounds, as being a direct violation of Articles 14, 15, and 25. It asserted that India’s secular fabric cannot be compromised to appease communal sentiments.

5. Precedent for Marginalized Communities 

The Court acknowledged the broader implications of this case for marginalized communities, particularly Dalits, tribal groups, and religious minorities. Justice Nagarathna warned against the dangerous precedent that would be set if the State’s arguments were accepted:

"If such practices are allowed, it will create a precedent that religious conversion strips individuals of their constitutional rights. This would not only embolden communal forces but also push marginalized communities further into subjugation."

The bench also underscored the importance of treating tribal customs with sensitivity but clarified that tribal practices cannot be used as a shield to justify exclusion or discrimination.

6. Directive for Future Framework 

The Court directed the State to develop guidelines to address similar disputes in the future, ensuring that communal tensions do not arise from such situations. It also instructed the authorities to act proactively in resolving burial disputes at the local level, instead of allowing matters to escalate to the judiciary. The Court reiterated that it is the State’s constitutional obligation to balance social harmony with the protection of fundamental rights.

Broader Implication

This judgment has significant implications, not only for the parties involved but also for India’s constitutional jurisprudence and its evolving societal fabric. It sets important precedents and reaffirms foundational values that resonate far beyond the confines of the courtroom.

1. Strengthening the Right to Dignity: By explicitly linking the right to dignity with the right to a decent burial, the judgment expands the scope of Article 21. It establishes that dignity in death is as important as dignity in life and must be protected irrespective of social, cultural, or religious considerations. This recognition will have far-reaching consequences for future cases involving burial rights, cremation disputes, and related cultural practices.
2. Safeguarding the Rights of Converted and Marginalized Groups: The ruling is a watershed moment for converted communities, particularly tribal Christians and Dalits, who often face discrimination and exclusion due to their religious choices. By affirming that conversion does not diminish an individual’s constitutional rights, the Court has provided a robust shield against systemic discrimination. This precedent will deter local authorities and communal groups from targeting converted individuals under the guise of preserving traditions. It also reaffirms the secular and pluralistic ethos of the Indian Constitution.
3. Reaffirmation of Secularism: The judgment is a strong endorsement of Indian secularism, emphasizing that the State must act as a neutral arbiter in disputes involving religion. By rejecting the State’s reliance on public order concerns, the Court has drawn a firm line against using communal sentiment as a justification for constitutional violations.
4. Setting Limits on Custom and Tradition: The judgment makes it clear that customary practices cannot override constitutional rights. While tribal customs deserve respect and recognition, they must evolve to align with the principles of equality and justice. This is particularly relevant in a country like India, where traditional practices often intersect with issues of caste, gender, and religion.
5. Holding Institutions Accountable: The Court’s criticism of the High Court and the State government serves as a reminder that all institutions, including the judiciary, have a duty to protect fundamental rights. The judgment reinforces the idea that courts must be proactive in safeguarding constitutional guarantees, especially in cases involving marginalized groups.
6. Broader Application to Discrimination Cases: The principles articulated in this judgment have broader applicability to cases involving discrimination in public spaces, housing rights, and even employment practices. The Court’s emphasis on equality and non-discrimination sets a high bar for justifying exclusionary practices.

Conclusion

The judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in this case is not just a resolution to a particular burial dispute but a strong reaffirmation of constitutional principles that govern the very fabric of Indian society. The case has broader implications, particularly in ensuring that fundamental rights such as the right to dignity and the right to equality are upheld, even in the most sensitive and contentious matters.

The Court's unequivocal stance that the right to a dignified burial is an extension of the right to dignity under Article 21 strengthens the understanding that human dignity does not end with death. By recognizing that all individuals, irrespective of their religious beliefs or caste background, are entitled to a dignified death, the Court has significantly expanded the scope of fundamental rights. This ensures that in future, any attempt to deny or undermine a person’s dignity in death due to their religion, caste, or social status will be closely scrutinized and resisted.

The judgment also vigorously protects the rights of marginalized communities, particularly those who have been historically discriminated against for their religious choices. By categorically rejecting the State’s argument that the petitioner’s conversion to Christianity warranted exclusion from the village burial ground, the Court reaffirmed the inviolability of religious freedoms and underlined that religious conversion should not result in a person’s alienation from their own community or locality. In a country where religious conversion can still be a deeply divisive issue, the Court’s stance has a profoundly unifying impact, ensuring that communities cannot be divided on religious lines when it comes to basic human rights like burial.

Download