Summary
In a split decision on where a Christian pastor from a Bastar village could be buried after villagers objected to burial in the village graveyard, Nagarathna J. would have permitted burial on the family's private land and found the State's stance discriminatory, while Satish Chandra Sharma J. upheld the High Court and directed burial at the designated Christian burial ground at Karkapal. With the body in the mortuary for three weeks, the Bench jointly directed under Article 142 that the burial take place at Karkapal with State logistical support and police protection.
Issues
- Whether the appellant could bury his father, a Christian, in the area of the village graveyard used by Christian members of the Mahra community, or alternatively on his private agricultural land, despite the villagers' objections and the 1999 Rules.
- Whether the right to last rites under Articles 21 and 25 includes a right to choose the place of burial.
- What directions should issue given that the deceased's body had remained in a mortuary since 07.01.2025.
Provisions considered
- Rules 3, 4 and 5, Chhattisgarh Gram Panchayat (Regulating Places for Disposal of Dead Bodies, Carcasses and other Offensive Matter) Rules, 1999Nagarathna J. read these Rules as imposing on the Gram Panchayat a duty to ensure disposal of every corpse within 24 hours whatever the deceased's faith, and to approve burial places by written order; the Panchayat had abdicated that duty. Sharma J. read them as requiring burial only at designated places. (¶¶ 14.4, 22.3, 22.10, 22.12, 24)
- Rule 8, Chhattisgarh Gram Panchayat (Regulating Places for Disposal of Dead Bodies, Carcasses and other Offensive Matter) Rules, 1999Nagarathna J. held that Rule 8, barring graves outside the place marked by the Panchayat, could not apply where no place had been marked for Christians, so burial on private land was reasonable; Sharma J. held Rule 8 prohibited burial on private land when a designated ground existed nearby. (¶¶ 22.7, 24)
- Articles 14 and 15(1), Constitution of IndiaNagarathna J. held that the State's affidavit stand that a person who converted to Christianity cannot be buried in the village graveyard amounted to hostile discrimination on the ground of religion. (¶¶ 22.10, 22.11)
- Articles 21 and 25, Constitution of IndiaSharma J. held that the right to last rites does not include an unqualified right to choose the exact place of burial, as Article 21 is subject to procedure established by law and Article 25 to public order and State regulation, though the State must provide every community a place for last rites.
- Article 142, Constitution of IndiaAs the judges disagreed on the place of burial, the Bench jointly invoked Article 142 to direct an expeditious burial at the Christian burial ground at Karkapal with State support and police protection.
Held
- Nagarathna J.: the Gram Panchayat had for decades orally permitted Christian members of the Mahra community to be buried in an internally demarcated part of the village graveyard, and nothing showed that Christians from the village used the Karkapal ground or that the village graveyard was reserved for Hindus; there was no reason to refuse the same to the appellant's father. (¶¶ 22.1, 22.2, 22.6)
- Nagarathna J.: the Gram Panchayat failed in its duty to formally earmark a burial place for Christians and to ensure burial within 24 hours, and instead took sides; since no place had been marked, Rule 8 could not be applied and the alternative plea of burial on the appellant's private land was reasonable. (¶¶ 22.3, 22.6, 22.7, 22.10, 22.12)
- Nagarathna J.: the State's declaration that a person who has converted to Christianity cannot be buried in the village graveyard violates Articles 14 and 15(1) and betrays secularism and fraternity; she would have permitted burial on the private land with police protection and directed the State to demarcate exclusive Christian burial sites throughout the State within two months. (¶¶ 22.10, 22.11, 24)
- Satish Chandra Sharma J. (separate opinion): the right to perform last rites under Articles 21 and 25 does not extend to an unqualified right to choose the place of burial; graves must be in designated areas under the 1999 Rules, the State's public order concern was not a ruse, and with a designated Christian burial ground about 20-25 km away at Karkapal there was no case for Article 142 relief to override Rule 8. He would have upheld the High Court and directed burial at Karkapal with State logistical support and police protection.
- Joint order: as there was no consensus on the place of burial, and to secure an expeditious and dignified burial of a body kept in the mortuary for three weeks, the Bench directed under Article 142, on the peculiar facts, that the appellant bury his father at the Christian burial ground at Karkapal, with State logistical support and police protection.
Result
Appeal disposed of. Under Article 142, the appellant was directed to bury his father at the Christian burial ground at village Karkapal, with the State to provide logistical support for transporting the body from the Jagdalpur mortuary and adequate police protection, and to ensure burial at the earliest.