The Madras High Court has ruled that denying Scheduled Caste members access to public burial or cremation grounds amounts to practising untouchability under Article 17 of the Constitution. The Court said such acts attract criminal action under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The Madras High Court has ruled that stopping members of a marginalised community from using a public burial or cremation ground amounts to practising untouchability and is a criminal offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Court made this clear in the case of KS Balakrishnan v. District Collector.
Delivering the judgment in a batch of writ petitions related to disputed land in Karumandisellipalayam village in Erode district, Justice V Lakshminarayanan strongly observed that burial and cremation grounds meant for public use cannot be restricted in a way that excludes Scheduled Caste communities.
The Court categorically held,
“…denying a person from a marginalised community access to the public burial or cremation ground is a criminal offence. It is a form of practicing untouchability, which has been declared as unconstitutional under Article 17 of the Constitution of India,”
the Court held.
The judge further emphasised that the District Collector, who has powers under the SC/ST Act, must take action whenever such violations occur. According to the Court, authorities cannot remain silent when members of Scheduled Castes are treated unfairly, especially in sensitive matters like burial rights.
The dispute concerned land in Thiruvengadampalayam hamlet. Although revenue records described the land as “cart track poromboke” (barren land used as a pathway), local residents stated that it had been functioning as a burial ground for several decades.
One group of petitioners approached the Court seeking to stop authorities from reclassifying the land as a burial ground and to prevent any burials or cremations there. On the other hand, another petitioner asked the Court to formally recognise the land as a burial/burning ground and to take action against individuals who allegedly used machinery to level graves at the site.
A report submitted by the District Collector revealed that parts of the land had been used as a burial ground for more than 70 years. It also recorded that certain graves had been disturbed during levelling work.
The report noted that members of the Arunthathiyar community, which is a Scheduled Caste group, were using portions of the land for burials and for conducting rituals connected to a “Mala Temple” situated within the same survey number.
The Court described the findings in the Collector’s report as “extremely disturbing” and made a sharp remark:
“On account of the rivalry between siblings, the dead have not been left at peace.”
Reiterating the importance of dignity even after death, the Court observed:
“Not only are the living entitled to live with dignity, but the dead too are entitled for a dignified burial.”
The judge stated that disturbing graves not only disrespects the deceased but also causes deep emotional pain to their family members.
The Court further pointed out that when complaints of grave desecration were brought to the notice of authorities, the State should have started criminal proceedings under Section 301 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which corresponds to Section 297 of the Indian Penal Code and deals with trespass on burial places and insulting human corpses.
In the context of Scheduled Caste burials at the site, the Court observed that the Collector ought to have used his powers under the SC/ST Act wherever required. The judgment clearly stated:
“The report of the District Collector showing that the graves of the persons belonging to the Scheduled Caste have been levelled. Necessarily he should have invoked the powers vested in him and initiated appropriate action,”
the judgment noted.
The Court also clarified an important legal point regarding local governance. Since Karumandisellipalayam is classified as a Special Grade Town Panchayat, it is governed by municipal law under the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 and related rules, and not by the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994.
Under Section 172 of the 1998 Act, burial and cremation grounds must be registered or licensed. The Court found that long-standing customary use of the land, along with Town Panchayat resolutions passed in the year 2000 and official references to a “cemetery road,” clearly established that a burial ground existed at the disputed site.
The Court rejected the argument that the presence of a modern crematorium located 1.5 kilometres away would automatically stop burials at the disputed land. It clarified that such a restriction can only happen if the municipal council issues a specific notification banning cremations elsewhere.
“It is not for this court to decide as to where body must be buried or cremated,”
the judge observed.
Finally, the Court allowed the petition that sought formal recognition and protection of the burial ground and dismissed the other two petitions. It issued several directions to the authorities:
The District Collector was directed to ensure that burial and cremation areas are clearly segregated and properly fenced.
The Town Panchayat was instructed to maintain the site properly and prevent encroachment or garbage dumping.
Revenue authorities were asked to act on the Panchayat’s resolution to reclassify the land used for burial and remove its classification as “cart track.”
ALSO READ: Legal Framework to Combat Caste Discrimination in India: Laws, Protections, and Reforms
The authorities were also directed to initiate appropriate legal action against those responsible for levelling graves.
The petitioners were represented by Advocates Jhansi Greeta, M Sidhardhan, M Guruprasad and CSK Satish. The private respondents were represented by Advocates Arun Anbumani, Abrar Mohammed Abdullah and K Kathir. The State authorities were represented by Advocates LSM Hasan Fazil and T Chezhian.
This judgment sends a strong message that denying burial rights to marginalised communities is not only socially unjust but also unconstitutional and punishable under criminal law, reinforcing the constitutional promise of equality and dignity for all, even after death.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Untouchability
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
