Can Church Authorities Demolish Existing Graves at Will? Madras High Court Says Cemeteries Are Held in Trust

Rejecting claims of unfettered ecclesiastical control over burial grounds, the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) has held that church authorities hold cemeteries in trust and cannot disturb existing graves without regard to constitutional limits and human dignity.

"Describing the Bishop as 'title holder' does not mean that he has an absolute right to “plough the cemetery like a field”. Any holder of property, particularly religious property dedicated to public or community use, is a trustee subject to constitutional limitations, human rights norms and statutory restrictions," said the bench of Justice L. Victoria Gowri said.

Court made the observation while setting aside an order of a judicial magistrate at Nagercoil that had dismissed, on a technical ground, a plea seeking criminal investigation into the alleged demolition of graves in a century-old Christian cemetery in Punnai Nagar, Nagercoil.

Justice Gowri stressed that ownership or control over church property does not translate into unfettered power to disturb existing graves without due process or the consent of affected families.

The case arose from allegations by a parishioner of Lurthannai Church that on January 7 and 8, 2025, church office-bearers entered the parish cemetery with JCB machines and demolished existing tombs and grave structures. The petitioner claimed that the cemetery, in use for more than 100 years, serves as the sole burial ground for parish members and their families, who pay a fee for grave space, and that the demolition was carried out without consultation or consent.

Following the incident, the petitioner lodged a police complaint, which was later closed as “action dropped.” A status quo order was subsequently passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer amid factional disputes within the parish. With no FIR registered, the petitioner approached the judicial magistrate under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, seeking a direction for investigation. The magistrate dismissed the plea solely because it was not accompanied by a supporting affidavit.

Allowing the criminal revision, the high court held that the magistrate erred in rejecting the petition at the threshold. Relying on recent Supreme Court judgment in S.N. Vijayalakshmi & Others v. State of Karnataka & Another, the high court reiterated that non-filing of an affidavit is a curable defect and that courts must afford an opportunity to rectify such lapses before passing substantive orders.

Beyond the procedural issue, court examined whether the allegations disclosed cognizable offences. It noted that even the respondents admitted to demolishing tomb superstructures, though they claimed the action was authorised by a general body resolution and did not involve exhumation of bodies. At the revision stage, court said, it was not required to determine the validity of resolutions or rival claims within the church.

Court held that, taken at face value, the allegations prima facie attract Section 301 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which penalises trespass and indignity in places of sepulture, as well as provisions of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act. It rejected the argument that disputes of this nature could be relegated to civil or revenue proceedings.

In its most emphatic observations, court clarified that religious cemeteries cannot be treated as private estates of bishops or parish priests. Properties dedicated for religious and community use, it said, are held in trust for the benefit of the faithful. Any drastic alteration to such property, particularly where identifiable graves exist, must comply with constitutional guarantees, statutory safeguards and principles of human dignity.

"The Bishop or Parish Priest, at best, is a trustee or custodian; such status does not clothe them with absolute power to plough, demolish or repurpose cemeteries at will, especially where graves of identified families already exist," Justice Gowri observed. 

Court also criticised the police for treating allegations of grave desecration as a mere administrative dispute. Status quo orders by revenue authorities, it said, cannot supplant the obligation of the police to investigate cognisable offences under criminal law.

Setting aside the magistrate’s order, the high court remanded the matter for fresh consideration, directing that the petitioner be allowed to file the requisite affidavit. Court asked the magistrate to seek reports from the police and revenue authorities and then decide the plea on merits, keeping in view the court’s findings on the trust-like and sacred character of cemeteries.

Court clarified that its observations were limited to deciding the revision and would not prejudice any future investigation or trial.

Case Title: Arul Gerald Prakash vs State of Tamil Nadu and Others

Order Date: December 16, 2025

Bench: Justice L Victoria Gowri