Today, 27th January, The Supreme Court delivered a split verdict on a graveyard dispute involving Christian burial rights, with one judge ruling that the denial of a burial site violated Articles 21 (right to life) and 14 (equality before the law). The case highlighted concerns over religious discrimination in burial practices. However, the bench declined to refer the matter to a larger bench for further deliberation. The ruling highlights the tension between individual religious rights and local government policies.
New Delhi: A Supreme Court bench delivered a split verdict on Monday regarding the right of a deceased Christian man from the Scheduled Tribe (ST) community to be buried in a village graveyard.
The bench preferred not to refer the case to a larger panel but issued joint directives to resolve the issue.
The central question was whether the deceased could be interred in the common graveyard where his Hindu ancestors were buried, considering his conversion to Christianity. The Chhattisgarh government contended that he should be laid to rest in a separate Christian graveyard located 20 kilometers away, citing potential law-and-order issues.
Conversely, the deceased’s son argued that his father had the right to be buried alongside his ancestors, asserting that he should not face discrimination due to his religious conversion.
The bench, consisting of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, could not reach a consensus on an ideal solution.
However, due to the deceased’s body having remained in a morgue for several days, the case was not escalated to a larger Bench. Instead, the court ordered the burial to take place at the state-suggested site 20 kilometers away.
The court stated,
“We do not wish to refer the matter to a third-judge bench since the body has been in the morgue since January 7. Under Article 142, we issue the following directives: 1) The burial will take place in the Karakwal graveyard as suggested by the state; 2) All logistical support will be provided.”
Justice Nagarathna initially proposed that the deceased be buried on the family’s private agricultural land, acknowledging that existing regulations typically do not permit such an option. She suggested that the state should provide security to facilitate this burial.
She said,
“The appellant (the deceased’s son) may bury him on their private agricultural land, and the respondent (state) will provide security for the burial. This is in light of the specific facts and circumstances of the case,”
She also instructed the state to establish burial grounds for Christians in all districts within two months.
Justice Nagarathna characterized the refusal to allow the Christian man to be buried in the village graveyard as unfortunate, discriminatory, and unconstitutional.
She stated,
“The affidavit from the ASP states that a converted Christian cannot be buried there. This is unfortunate and violates Articles 21 and 14, promoting discrimination on religious grounds. The state cannot deny equality before the law. Article 15 prohibits discrimination based on religion, gender, caste, etc.,”
She criticized the village panchayat’s hostile stance against the burial and condemned the state’s inaction against such hostility, calling it a betrayal of secular principles.
In contrast, Justice Sharma dissented on these points, arguing,
“There is no reason for burial rights to be unconditional. Broad and misleading rights can disrupt public order. Maintaining public order is in the broader interest of society.”
The dispute originated when a Christian man was denied permission to bury his deceased father in the ancestral village graveyard. Petitioner Ramesh Bhagal approached the court to seek permission for the burial in Chhindwara, where the village had an informally allocated graveyard for burials and cremations.
Bhagal’s father had converted to Christianity, and he noted that the village graveyard had designated areas for tribals, Hindus, and Christians. He pointed out that other family members had previously been buried in the Christian-designated section.
However, some villagers strongly opposed the burial of Bhagal’s father in the designated section, threatening serious repercussions and preventing the family from using their private land for the burial. The villagers asserted that a Christian man could not be buried anywhere in the village.
After the Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed his petition, stating that no separate burial site existed for Christians and that a graveyard was available in a nearby village, the petitioner filed an appeal with the Supreme Court.
The High Court had noted that interring the petitioner’s father in the tribal Hindu graveyard could cause “disharmony and discord.”
The case presented a clash between the right to bury a loved one in a family’s ancestral land and concerns about maintaining law and order.
The issue began when Bhaghel, the son of the deceased, sought permission to bury his father in the burial ground of their native village, Chhindawada. However, some villagers opposed the burial, arguing that Christians should not be buried in the village graveyard. The High Court had earlier dismissed Bhaghel’s plea, suggesting that the burial ground meant for Hindus could lead to unrest and disharmony. It also mentioned that a burial ground for Christians was available in a nearby village, 20-25 kilometers away.
The Supreme Court also questioned the High Court’s decision to dismiss the petition citing potential law and order issues. The Court emphasized that issues like these should not be dismissed merely on such grounds.
Case Title: RAMESH BAGHEL v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 1399/2025