Isha Foundation is doing pious Work: Supreme Court Commends Crematorium Project Work

Supreme Court has called for an amicable settlement of the dispute concerning certain residents of a village in Coimbatore and spiritual organisation Isha Foundation over their decision to set up a crematorium near the village.

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi has requested retired Supreme Court Justice RV Raveendran to mediate the dispute. "We request Justice Raveendran to provide his services as a mediator in the case. Let both parties consult him by tomorrow and let the fee schedule be prepared by the mediator," it has ordered.

CJI Kant noted today that Sadhguru's Isha Foundation is doing pious work. "Burial has become an expensive affair. Isha Foundation is not a religious service. They are doing some pious work. It's a good work also. Did you sell this land to them? You can only claim that you sold for lawful activity, but you cannot dictate it to them (what they should or should not do). Let them find a suitable place for you and compensate you so that you have better living conditions," CJI Kant added.

The matter will now be heard on April 17, 2026.

The dispute reached the Supreme Court after the Madras High Court on January 21, 2026 cleared the way for the Isha Foundation’s crematorium project at Ikkarai Boluvampatti village in Coimbatore district, dismissing petitions that questioned its legality under the Tamil Nadu Village Panchayats (Provision of Burial and Burning Grounds) Rules, 1999.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan held that once a burial or burning ground is duly licensed under Rule 5 of the 1999 Rules, the 90-metre distance restriction prescribed under Rule 7 would not apply.

Court observed that this legal position already stood conclusively settled by a Full Bench of the High Court in Jagadheeswari v. B. Babu Naidu. The petitions were filed by local residents and individuals from neighbouring villages, questioning the validity of permissions granted for the construction of the “Isha Foundation Kalabhairavar Dhagana Mandapam” at Ikkarai Boluvampatti in Perur taluk. The petitioners sought to quash an order issued by the village panchayat president in April 2023 and a subsequent consent order issued by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board in February 2024.

The principal contention advanced by the petitioners was that Rule 7 of the 1999 Rules prohibits the burial or burning of corpses within 90 metres of dwelling houses or sources of drinking water, and therefore the crematorium could not have been permitted at the proposed site. The petitioners also raised concerns about the ecological sensitivity of the area, pointing out that the village falls under the Hill Area Conservation Authority and within the Boluvampatti forest division, which is a known elephant habitat.

Rejecting these submissions, the bench noted that the Full Bench in Jagadheeswari had already examined the scheme of the 1999 Rules and clarified the relationship between Rules 5 and 7. The Full Bench had held that Rule 7’s distance restriction does not apply to burial or burning grounds that are duly licensed by the village panchayat in accordance with Rule 5. Court extracted and relied upon the Full Bench’s reasoning that both Rules 5 and 7 begin with negative clauses, but Rule 5 expressly contemplates the opening of new burial or burning grounds, whether public or private, subject to the grant of a licence. Once such a licence is granted following the prescribed procedure, the place assumes the character of a lawful burial or burning ground, and the prohibition under Rule 7(1) would not operate against it.

The bench further observed that the argument that no permission could be granted at all within the 90-metre distance was directly contrary to the law laid down by the Full Bench and therefore could not be accepted. In view of this settled position, court declined to entertain the primary ground of challenge raised by the petitioners. As regards the other submissions relating to the suitability of the site and administrative considerations, court held that these were matters falling within the domain of local authorities and policy decisions. The bench noted that the establishment of an additional crematorium, particularly a gasifier crematorium, was intended to serve the needs of the community and could not be presumed to be against public interest.

Case Title: S. N. SUBRAMANIAN Vs THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CUM INSPECTOR

Bench: CJI Kant, Justice Bagchi and Justice Pancholi

Hearing Date: February 26, 2026