The Supreme Court remarked, “Why cannot a person be buried where they wanted to? Body is in mortuary? We are sorry to say that a person has to come to Supreme Court for the burial of his father. The High Court, panchayat, etc. are not able to solve the problem. The High Court says there will be law and order problem.. We are pained at this.”
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court today(20th Jan) hearing over a dispute concerning the burial of a Christian man from a Scheduled Tribe (ST) community in his family’s native village burial ground.
The case sparked heated arguments between Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the State of Chhattisgarh, and Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, who appeared for the petitioner, Ramesh Bhaghel.
The Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma expressed dissatisfaction over the prolonged delay in the burial, noting that the body of the deceased had been kept in the mortuary for 12 days.
The Court remarked, “Why cannot a person be buried where they wanted to? Body is in mortuary? We are sorry to say that a person has to come to Supreme Court for the burial of his father. The High Court, panchayat, etc. are not able to solve the problem. The High Court says there will be law and order problem.. We are pained at this.”
At the Supreme Court, Solicitor General Mehta stated, “You just wanted disturbance between tribal Hindus and tribal Christians. This is just beginning of a movement.”
He argued that the petitioner’s insistence on burying his father in his family’s village graveyard was an attempt to create unrest between the two communities.
Mehta further warned, “We cannot allow this to become a movement and we cannot allow this to happen. It is not just about this individual death.”
On the other hand, Senior Advocate Gonsalves accused the State of trying to forcefully segregate Christians.
He replied to Mehta’s statement, saying, “Yes, beginning of movement to kick Christians out … Now they are trying to create a precedent where they are saying if you convert, you will have to go out of the village … this is a dangerous one.”
Gonsalves suggested that this situation was just the beginning of a larger movement to discriminate against Christians in the village, based on their religion.
READ ALSO: Supreme Court Intervenes for Dignified Burial of Manipur Violence Victims
BACKGROUND:
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.
It remarked, “Writs are being dismissed in the name of law and order. We fear that if we don’t decide then there will be two bodies in the mortuary.”
The dispute itself arose from the petitioner’s request to bury his father in the village graveyard, where there is a designated area for Christians, along with separate sections for tribal Hindus. According to Bhaghel, his father had been buried in the same graveyard along with other family members before his conversion to Christianity.
However, some villagers strongly opposed the burial of the deceased in the designated Christian section, stating that a Christian person should not be buried in the village at all, whether in the village graveyard or on private land. The villagers even threatened the petitioner’s family with severe consequences and prohibited them from using privately owned land for the burial.
The Chhattisgarh High Court had rejected the petitioner’s request to bury his father in the village graveyard, citing the availability of a separate Christian burial ground 20-25 kilometers away. The High Court also noted that allowing the burial in the Hindu ST burial ground could lead to unrest and tension between the two communities.
During the hearing, Solicitor General Mehta defended the decision, stating, “This is burial ground for the tribals who are not Christians. Though they are not Christians, they bury their dead. When Christians die, just 20 kilometers away, there is a Christian burial ground and they take the dead there and bury them. This ground is a Hindu tribal burial ground.”
The Bench then questioned why the petitioner could not bury his father on his own land.
In response, Mehta explained, “Once you bury or cremate someone in a private land, the character of land changes. It becomes a sacred place and it also has health issues. That is not permitted.. cremation etc. is not allowed in private lands.”
Gonsalves, however, argued that his client’s father and other family members had previously been buried in the village burial ground, and that the burial ground had a special area designated for Christians.
He said, “But they had not converted,” in response to Mehta’s argument that the burial ground was meant only for Hindu tribals. Gonsalves further added, “Please see the picture of the graveyard.. my father, aunt all has cross on their graves. We have a special place for ourselves in that burial ground.”
The Solicitor General also mentioned that the State was willing to provide an ambulance and transport the body to the Christian burial ground 15 kilometers away.
READ ALSO: Manipur Tribal Forum Raises Concerns Over Kuki-Zo Violence, Files Petition to SC
Mehta stated, “We will provide ambulance and we will take them 15 kilometers away with all respect and give burial according to Christian rights. They should have respected dead person’s dignity.”
Gonsalves countered, saying, “This is a village graveyard. They are trying to break away that basic fragment of secularism.”
He argued that allowing such segregation based on religion would undermine the country’s secular principles.
The hearing concluded with the Supreme Court posting the matter for further hearing on January 22, after Solicitor General Mehta requested more time.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
