Read Time: 13 minutes

Synopsis

On January 27, 2025, a division bench of the Supreme Court was split on the issue of burial of a converted Christian in Chhattigarh's village Chhindwada.

The son of the deceased, a third generation Christian belonging to the New Apostolic Church approached the Supreme Court after his father, a pastor, died on January 7, 2025 and fellow villagers objected and threatened the appellant's family against his burial within the village. It is the case of the appellant, Ram Baghel  that there was no help from the local gram panchayat and even the local policy forcefully exhorted Baghel's family to take the body out of the village, following which he had to take the body the mortuary of District Hospital and Medical College, Jagdalpur.

After approaching the High Court of Chhatisgarh, the appellant continued to stand aggrieved as the HC refused to grant relief to the appellant. It is also the case of the Appellant that under Section 95 read with Section 49(12) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, the State Government has made Chhattisgarh Gram Panchayat (Regulating Places for Disposal of Dead Bodies, Carcasses and other Offensive Matter) Rules, 1999 and as such, under the prevailing law, Rule 3 mandated disposal of the corpse within twenty four hours whereas Rule 4 casts a duty on the Gram Panchayat to arrange for disposal of corpse, and Rule 5 provided for place for disposal of corpse. Beside, he stated that his previous generations who were not converted Christians were buried in the native village and thus, his deceased father should be given the same right. Alternatively, he sought permission to bury his father in his own private agricultural land at village Chhindwada.

The main contention was that the deceased was a convert to Christianity from the Mahra caste and it was claimed by the Additional Superintendent of Policy (ASP) of Bastar district that no separate burial ground/ graveyard existed for members of the Christian community in the native village, but existed in village Karkapal which is 20-25 kms away from the village of the appellant. He further pointed out that as Chhatisgarh is a tribal state, it has a peculiar socio-economic position. As there are only 100 covered Christians in the village as against a total population of 6450, there is one burial ground for 3-4 villages.

Amid a number of positions, including prima facie non-existence of any official notification or document stating that a Christian graveyard has been designated in the village, the bench evaluated the existing position in context of the appellant's grievance based on discrimination and prejudice. 

"Abdication of Duty" & violation of Article 14

Justice BV Nagarathna stated in her view that the declaration of the ASP that “Any person who has forsworn the tradition of the community or has converted into a Christian is not allowed to be buried at the village graveyard” is violation of Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution of India. She pointed out that the village panchayat has abdicated its duty to ensure burial of appellant’s father within a period of 24 hours of his death in terms of the existing law. 

"It is not known as to under what authority, such a declaration could have been made by the deponent, who is the ASP, Bastar whose duty is to maintain law and order and ensure peace and harmony in the society. What is the basis for such a declaration? Such an attitude on the part of local authorities, at the village level or higher level, indicates a betrayal of the sublime principles of secularism and the glorious traditions of our country which believes in “Sarva Dharma Samanvaya/Sarva Dharma Samabhava”," Justice Nagarathna pointed out. 

She said that the Panchayat’s failure to discharge its duty to approve a place for burial for Mahra community following Christian faith howsoever small in number they may be within its jurisdiction.

"Place of burial under Article 21 not circumspect"

Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, on the other hand said that though there can be no qualm on the fact that procedures pertaining to last rites and ceremonies form rights protected under part III of the Constitution, claiming that such a right would encompass the unqualified right to choose the "place" of such ceremony would prima facie appear to stretch constitutional limits beyond what is envisaged. 

"It is well settled that right(s) protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India are subject to “procedure established by law” which is required to be to be just, fair and reasonable.2 Furthermore, the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion under Article 25, is ex facie subject to “public order”3; and the Sub- Clause 2 of Article 25 enables the State to frame provisions regulating certain activities associated with religious practices," the judge said.

As a result, he pointed out that to claim an absolute or unqualified right in respect of the exact place of burial of a person under Article 21 and Article 25, prima facie, appears to be circumspect.

Where to bury?

While Justice Nagarathna held that the burial should take place on the privately owned land of the appellant in the native village, Justice Sharma said that he should be buried "within the limits of reason and rationality" at the burial ground of the Christian Community i.e., the Designated Christian Burial Ground situated in village Karkapal merely at a distance of 20-25KM from the Deceased’s native village.

However, as there was no consensus between the bench, the operative part of the order gave following instructions jointly:

(i)  The appellant shall conduct the funeral rites and bury his deceased father at the burial ground at village Karkapal.

(ii)  The respondent-State and its local authorities shall ensure that the appellant and his family are provided with all logistical support for the purpose of transferring the body of the deceased from the mortuary at the Medical College situated in Jagdalpur to the Christian burial ground situated at village Karkapal, if so desired by the appellant.

(iii)  Adequate police protection shall be accorded in this regard.

(iv)  The respondent-State and its authorities shall ensure that the burial of the deceased father shall take place at the earliest.