Today, On 22nd January, The Chhattisgarh government informed the Supreme Court that allowing a Christian man’s burial in a graveyard designated for Scheduled Tribe Hindus could lead to tensions. Highlighting concerns, it argued this reflects religious discrimination, signaling converts are excluded even in death. The Supreme Court, reserving its verdict, directed the state to ensure Christians have an alternative burial ground without interference. The decision aims to balance communal harmony and burial rights.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court reserved its order on Wednesday regarding the burial of a Christian man from a Scheduled Tribe (ST) community in the village burial ground.
A Bench composed of Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma heard arguments from the deceased man’s son, the petitioner, and the Chhattisgarh government before deciding to reserve its verdict.
The State, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, maintained that the man should be buried in a separate Christian burial ground located 20 kilometers from the village.
While reserving its decision, the Bench emphasized the need for a designated place for the Christian community to conduct burials in accordance with their religious rites.
Justice Nagarathna stated,
“We want there to be a specific area for the Christian community to bury their dead without any interference or objection. At the same time, we must consider that in some villages, the numbers may be small, while in others they may be larger. We are concerned about establishing an exclusive Christian graveyard where there will be no kind of interruption or objection,”
The State has been asked to submit an affidavit regarding this matter. The Court mentioned that it would issue an order soon, as the body has been in the morgue for an extended period.
The Wednesday hearing was as eventful as the previous one, with the State arguing that the petitioner’s insistence on burying his father in the family’s native burial ground could lead to a public order issue.
SG Mehta questioned,
“What if tomorrow a Hindu argues, ‘I want to cremate my family member in a Muslim burial ground because his ancestors were Muslims or whatever… he converted to Hinduism’? From the State’s perspective, this is a public order issue. Public order is an exception to Article 25,”
He stated that the State is willing to transport the body to the Christian burial ground and would provide an ambulance for this purpose.
Mehta explained,
“We will provide an ambulance. The burial ground is 15 kilometers away and can accommodate 100-200 people. One Christian burial ground serves 3-4 villages and spans 4-5 acres,”
Regarding the village burial ground where the petitioner wished to inter his father, the SG clarified that it was designated exclusively for Hindu tribal individuals.
He asserted,
“That site is for tribal Hindus, not Christians,”
Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, representing the petitioner, argued that the village burial ground serves as a common burial place for all communities and that there is a designated space for the family of the deceased. He pointed out that his ancestors have been buried there.
Gonsalves argued,
“To ask me, as a convert to Christianity, to go elsewhere is discrimination in itself,”
However, Justice Sharma initially disagreed, stating,
“There is no discrimination at all.”
SG Tushar Mehta raised a hypothetical scenario,
“Suppose tomorrow a Hindu argues, ‘I want to cremate my family member in a Muslim burial ground because his ancestors were Muslims or whatever… he converted to Hinduism.’ What would be the situation?”
This discussion arose from the denial of permission for a Christian man to bury his deceased father in the burial ground of their native village.
The petitioner, Ramesh Bhaghel, approached the Court seeking permission to inter his father in their village of Chhindawada. He claimed that the village has a graveyard that is informally allocated by the gram panchayat for both burial and cremation.
Bhaghel stated that his father had converted to Christianity and argued that within the village graveyard, there are separate sections designated for the burial or cremation of individuals from the tribal, Hindu, and Christian communities. He noted that other family members had previously been buried in the area allocated for Christians in Chhindawada.
However, some villagers strongly opposed the burial and issued threats against the petitioner’s family. They also prohibited the use of their privately owned land for the burial, insisting that a Christian person cannot be buried anywhere in the village, whether in the village graveyard or on private property.
Bhaghel then approached the Chhattisgarh High Court, which dismissed his plea, stating that there was no separate burial ground designated for the Christian community in the area.
The High Court acknowledged the existence of a designated burial area for Christians in a nearby village, located 20-25 kilometers away, and suggested that the deceased could be buried there. It warned that burying the petitioner’s father in a burial ground intended for Hindu Scheduled Tribes could lead to “unrest and disharmony.”
Following this, Bhaghel filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.
Colin Gonsalves, Senior Advocate for the petitioner, argued,
“To ask me, as a convert to Christianity, to go elsewhere is discrimination in itself.”
He contended that the refusal to allow the burial was based solely on the deceased’s Christian faith.
Responding to this, SG Mehta stated that the burial ground was specifically meant for Hindu Scheduled Tribe individuals and that there was a separate burial ground for Christians about 20 kilometers away.
Gonsalves countered, arguing,
“There is patent discrimination based on religion. This is hostile discrimination that signals to the living that ‘you are a convert; you will never be buried in our land.’”
Justice Sharma interjected,
“Don’t give it such color,”
Justice Sharma pointed to the State’s assertion that a designated burial place for Christians exists.
Gonsalves responded,
“This is a nice excuse contrived for the case. It is to create trouble.”
The State also argued that the body could not be buried on the petitioner’s private land due to existing regulations.
The Court then instructed the State to provide clear details regarding the Christian burial ground said to be located 20 kilometers away.
While reserving its verdict, the Court remarked,
“You (State) tell us where it is located. File an affidavit. Your affidavit is vague,”