Ramesh Baghel vs State Of Chhattisgarh

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.1399 of 2025)

RAMESH BAGHEL …APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & OTHERS …RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT

NAGARATHNA, J.

Leave granted.

2. It is said that death is a great leveller. It is necessary for us

to remind ourselves time and again about this solemn truth. But

the instant case demonstrates that the death of a resident of a

village can give rise to divisiveness thereby calling upon the Apex

Court to rule on his site of burial.

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NEETU SACHDEVA Date: 2025.01.27 14:37:06 IST Reason: Page 1 of 37

3. Appellant herein is a bereaved son and an aggrieved litigant.

A third generation Christian, the appellant belongs to the New

Apostolic Church. His family and ancestors have been native

residents of village Chhindwada, Tehsil Darbha, District Bastar,

Chhattisgarh for generations and belong to the Mahra caste or

community. A native resident of the same village Chhindwada, the

appellant’s father, a man of faith and a pastor since 1986-87,

passed away on January 7th, 2025 after suffering from prolonged

illness and old age. In his living years, the appellant’s father led

and participated in prayers organized in the village church and

other places as well.

4. Unfortunately, the appellant’s duty as a progeny and wish to

accord a decent burial to his father in his own native village was

met with abrupt hurdles as his fellow villagers objected and

threatened the appellant’s family against the burial of the

appellant’s deceased father within the village. This objection to

burial within the village confines also extended to restraining the

appellant from laying to rest his father’s mortal remains in their

privately owned agricultural land. It is the case of the appellant

that to his utter dismay even the local police forcefully exhorted the

Page 2 of 37 appellant’s family to take the body out of the village. There was no

help from the local Gram Panchayat also. Compelled by

circumstances and on the advice of fellow relatives, the family of

the appellant proceeded to take his father’s body to the mortuary

of District Hospital and Medical College, Jagdalpur.

5. Aggrieved by these circumstances, the appellant, on

07.01.2025, submitted representations to the SHO, Police Station

Darbha, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh and the SDO of Tokapal,

District Bastar Chhattisgarh detailing his predicament and seeking

police protection and from the State authorities for ensuring

peaceful burial and last rites in the Christian burial area of village

Chhindwada.

6. Having received no aid from the State machinery, the

appellant approached the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur

in W.P.(C) No.125 of 2024 seeking a direction to the State of

Chhattisgarh to allow the appellant to bury his father at the same

site where his ancestors were buried in the village of Chhindwada

and also sought police protection to that end.

Page 3 of 37

7. It is pertinent to note that during the pendency of the writ

petition, the ‘Barahpal Chindwara Gram Panchayat No. 1, 2, 3’

issued a certificate wherein it was certified that there existed no

graveyard of Christian community at any place within the limits of

the Gram Panchayat.

8. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 09.01.2025 came to be

passed by the High Court disposing of the writ petition by refusing

to grant relief as prayed for the appellant.

9. It was submitted by the appellant before the High Court, as is

before this Court, that village Chhindwada has a graveyard and the

Gram Panchayat has by an oral sanction permitted burial of dead

bodies. Separate graveyards exist for Tribals and other

communities. It was contended that there is a separate area

earmarked for the burial/cremation of persons belonging to the

Christian community within the graveyard of Mahra Caste or

community. It was also argued that appellant’s ancestors and

relatives, as detailed hereunder, have throughout the decades been

buried in the area demarcated for Christians. For instance,

Page 4 of 37 i. Appellant’s grandfather died in the year 2007 and was

buried in the graveyard of the village meant for

Christians.

ii. Two distant relatives of the appellant, namely, Sadashiv

Singh and Bhagirathi, both residents of the same village

were buried in the very same graveyard in March 2013

after they suffered with their lives at the hands of

Naxalites.

iii. Appellant’s aunt passed away in 2015 and was buried in

the same graveyard of the village Chhindwada.

10. Therefore, the prayer of the appellant was simply that

Christian members of his family i.e. appellant’s father be allowed

to be buried in the same manner and at the same place as the

Christian members of his family i.e. appellant’s grandfather and

aunt had been. It must be noted that nothing has been brought

before this Court to reveal that there was similar opposition to

performing the funeral rites of appellant’s grandfather and aunt in

the native village.

11. Per contra, the State relied on the certificate issued by the

Gram Panchayat to contend that no burial ground of the Christian

Page 5 of 37 community exists within its confines. It was alternatively argued

that no one can have any quarrel with funeral rites performed as

per original custom if the appellant were to be permitted to bury

his father in village Karkapal, situated at a distance of 20-25 kms

(or more) from the native village, where a separate burial ground

for Christian community is available.

12. It was this submission that found favour with the High Court

as it observed that “admittedly” there exists no separate burial

ground/graveyard for the members of the Christian community in

the native village whereas it does in the nearby village. The High

Court reasoned that it would not be proper to direct burial of

appellant’s father’s mortal remains in his own native village to avert

‘unrest and disharmony in the public at large’. Accordingly, the

writ petition was disposed. Therefore, the appellant was left worse

off in his own writ petition as beyond rejecting his main as well as

alternative prayers the High Court also observed that the deceased

could be buried in village Karkapal, which is 20-25 kms far from

village Chhindwada. Hence, the appeal before this Court.

13. Counter-affidavits on behalf of the respondent-State of

Chhattisgarh have been filed which we shall advert to.

Page 6 of 37

14. The first affidavit is dated 19.01.2025 sworn to by the

Additional Superintendent of Police (“ASP”), District Bastar,

Chhattisgarh stating that he is well conversant with the facts and

circumstances of the case borne out of the record and on the basis

of the knowledge gathered from the record he has stated that the

appellant is a member of the Christian community belonging to the

New Apostolic Church. The appellant, his family and ancestors

have been residing in the village Chhindwada since time

immemorial and they have agricultural land in the said village. The

appellant and his family belong to the Mahra Caste and the father

of the appellant – the deceased - was a pastor and had been

involved in participating in the prayers of the village Church and

elsewhere too. That the village Chhindwada has a total population

of 6450 out of which 6000 people belong to tribal community and

rest i.e. 450 people belong to Mahra community. Out of 450

people, 350 people belong to Hindu Mahra community and the

remaining 100 people belong to Christian community.

14.1 Further, in the village Chhindwada, there is a graveyard and

the Gram Panchayat has orally allocated space for

burial/cremation of the dead bodies. In this village graveyard,

Page 7 of 37 separate areas have been earmarked for burial of tribals and for

the burial/cremation of persons belonging to Hindu religion; that

the appellant’s grandfather Lakeshwar Baghel died 28 years ago

and his last rites were carried out as per village rituals as he was

a Hindu; appellant’s aunt Shanti Baghel died eight years ago and

her burial was carried out as per Mahra community rituals in the

said village graveyard.

14.2 That the appellant’s father died on 07.01.2025 at 7.00 am due

to prolonged illness and the appellant wanted to bury him in the

area specified for Christians in the abovementioned village

graveyard. It is averred that “Hearing about this, some villagers

aggressively objected to this and they threatened of dire

consequences if the instant appellant and his family buried the

instant appellant’s father in this land”. It is averred in paragraph

‘7(f)’ of the affidavit that “in the Gram Panchayat, birth, marriage

and death rituals are carried out as per the tradition. 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.

It is also averred that “there is no separate graveyard for Christian

community in Gram Barahpal, Chhindwada”. Furthermore,

Page 8 of 37 paragraph ‘7(g)’ avers that “According to the villagers, a Christian

person cannot be buried in their village be it at the village graveyard

or the instant Petitioner’s own private land”. That, inter alia, the

husband of the incumbent Sarpanch, Mangtu, has objected to the

burial in the instant case and as the villagers turned violent, the

appellant’s family made a report to the Police and 30/35 police

personnel reached the village. Presently, the dead body has been

kept in the mortuary in the District Hospital and Medical College,

Jagdalpur. The appellant then made an application seeking

protection and help from the respondent-authorities to ensure the

peaceful and honourable burial of his father in the Christian burial

area of the village before the Chhindwada Police Station and also

made similar applications to the Collector, Bastar; SDM, Tokapal;

Inspector General of Police, Bastar; Superintendent of Police,

Bastar and Police Station Darbha also.

14.3 That, when information was received from Dundul Nag and

District Sarpanch that a pastor of Mendabhata i.e. the appellant’s

father has died in his house due to illness, the police arrived at his

house. It is averred in paragraph 8(II) that “as per the senior

citizens, people belonging to tribal community and other hindu

Page 9 of 37 community members, burial should be carried out as per the

Christian rituals in the graveyard of Karkapal, Jagdalpur and, on

the other hand, the Mahara Christian community members and the

family of the deceased wanted to carry out the burial at

Chhindwada as they have been residing there for generations”.

That there was a heated exchange between the members of various

communities. Later, it was decided to file a petition before the High

Court.

14.4 That in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 95

read with Section 49(12) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj

Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short “the Act of 1993”), the State

Government has made Chhattisgarh Gram Panchayat (Regulating

Places for Disposal of Dead Bodies, Carcasses and other Offensive

Matter) Rules, 1999 (for short “the 1999 Rules”). That, Rule 3

mandates 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 provides for place for disposal of corpse.

According to this deponent, “there is no separate graveyard for

Christians at village Chhindwada which contained the signatures of

Sarpanch, Up-Sarpanch and Panchas”; that, there is no objection if

Page 10 of 37 the appellant performs the funeral rites of his deceased father in

the nearby village Karkapal, which is situated near village

Chhindwada, where there is a separate graveyard for the Christian

community. That, in the past few years, disputes have arisen

between the people belonging to Mahra Christian community and

tribal community owing to their religious beliefs. That, as a result,

every time a member of Mahra Christian community dies, the

police reach at the place of occurrence of death so as to avoid any

heated exchange between the parties and to help them to find a

solution or a common ground in case any dispute arises between

the parties. It is also averred in para 13 that if the respective

communities are unable to find a solution, “the governmental

bodies usually suggest the Mahara Christian community to use their

respective private lands as their burial ground and in case that fails,

then the police suggests the Christian community to carry burial

ceremonies at the government burial grounds situated at Karkapal

which is approximately 40-45 kms far from Chhindwada”.

According to the learned Solicitor General appearing for the State

of Chhattisgarh the distance to Karkapal should be read as 20-25

kms away from Chhindwada.

Page 11 of 37

15. The aforesaid affidavit is followed by another affidavit dated

21.01.2025 wherein the ASP, District Bastar has averred that the

State of Chhattisgarh is essentially a tribal State and has its

peculiar socio-economic position. The tribals customarily do not

resort to cremation at the time of death but they bury their dead in

a separate designated place for burial. This is a “Hindu-tribal-

burial site.” That, there are some tribals who are converted

Christians and they follow Christianity as their religion. That in the

village in question there are only 100 converted Christians as

against the total population of 6450. As a result, one burial ground

is designated for three to four villages depending upon the number

of Christians in each village. It is averred that the Rules specify

and designate a particular earmarked place for cremation or burial

for Muslim/Hindu Tribals/Other Hindus who bury the

dead/Christians. That merely because “… that in the past in few

occasions, the Hindu tribals permitted their burial grounds to be

used for burial of two persons, cannot be construed as waiver of

fundamental rights by the Hindu Tribal community since the

fundamental rights can never be waived.” That, “… a mere

deviation in preserving the right of “practice” of religion in two cases

Page 12 of 37 would not change the character of the burial ground designated for

Hindu Tribals whose religion requires burial rather than cremation.”

Reference is also made to Articles 21 and 25 of the Constitution.

In light of the above, the deponent has stated that the State

Government would provide an ambulance to carry the body for

being respectfully buried at a designated burial ground for

Christians and/or State Government will ensure adequate security

as deemed necessary.

16. This affidavit is followed by another affidavit filed by the ASP,

Bastar on 22.1.2025. It is averred that there is a designated burial

space for Christians at village Karkapal comprised in Khasra No.9

/94 admeasuring 1.96 acres and that the community has also

taken over adjoining land making the designated land as 2.15 acres

which is sufficient to cater to the need of the Christian burials,

considering the population of Christians in nearby four villages.

That there is a demarcation report prepared in 2013 with respect

to the aforesaid burial ground showing the position of 2.15 acres

in the panchnama drawn on 30.01.2013 in the presence of the

persons of the Christian community. That Christians of all the four

villages i.e. Chhindwada, Munga, Tirathgarh and Darbha are using

Page 13 of 37 the said land for burying the Christians of said four villages.

Therefore, the appellant belonging to Christian community has a

designated burial place.

17. In response to these affidavits, the appellant has also filed two

additional affidavits. In the additional affidavit dated 21.01.2025,

the appellant has stated that the de facto situation on the ground

level has been to use the land in Khasra No.725/136 in village

Chhindwada as a graveyard and all communities have used the

aforesaid land as a graveyard which had to be formally recognised

by the Gram Panchayat and the Collector. In this regard, reliance

is placed on a hand-drawn map of the graveyard in Khasra

No.725/136 prepared by the local Patwari, as annexed to the

additional affidavit. That, earlier several Christians from Mahra

Caste have been buried in the village graveyard which has been

earmarked partly for the Christians. Photographs along with the

coordinates indicating the latitude and longitude of the graves and

affidavits of the persons who have buried the dead members of

their families in the said graveyard have been annexed to the

additional affidavit.

Page 14 of 37

18. In support of the said material, another additional affidavit

dated 22.01.2025 has been filed to counter what has been stated

in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit of the State. It is stated that

no Christian in the neighbouring villages i.e. Darbha, Mamadpal

and Karka has ever buried their deceased in the village Karkapal.

It is also stated that in Chhindwada or the aforesaid surrounding

villages, no Christian has ever taken the body of their dead outside

the village for burial.

Submissions:

19. Learned senior counsel, Sri Gonsalves, appearing for the

appellant argued that the High Court has gravely erred by finding

reason in potential “unrest and disharmony” in declining relief to

the appellant. It is the appellant’s contention that unruly

sentiments have transformed appellant’s deceased father’s last

rites into a contentious issue, where none could possibly exist as

the family has been burying their dead at the same location for

generations.

19.1. It was emphasized that in the native village of the appellant,

Chhindwada, there are separate graveyards for Tribals and the

Mahra Caste and within the graveyard for Mahra caste there exists

Page 15 of 37 a separate area for burial/cremation of persons belonging to Hindu

religion and the Christian community. Appellant has also

submitted before this Court photographs and co-ordinates of the

graves of his aunt and grandfather, in the area specified for

Christians in the village graveyard.

19.2 Furthermore, it was submitted that the existence of oral

permission by the Gram Panchayat is confirmed by the practice of

burying Christians from the last few decades including appellant’s

grandfather and aunt being buried in the area specified for

Christians. Therefore, according to the appellant, there indubitably

is an established practice. In that light, it was contended that all

these decades the local Gram Panchayat, on the basis of oral

permission, had permitted Christian burials in the village itself and

the photographs of the graves of appellant’s family members stand

as a testimony to the said fact. However, the High Court erred in

insisting upon written permission or relying upon the Certificate

issued by the Sarpanch submitted to the Court.

19.3 It was further submitted that this Court may direct the

respondents not to create any hindrance to the burial of appellant’s

father adjacent to the burials of his grandfather and aunt. In

Page 16 of 37 alternative, it was submitted that permission may be granted to the

appellant herein to bury his father in his private agricultural land

which would in a way give a quietus to the controversy.

20. Per contra, learned Solicitor General Sri Tushar Mehta led the

arguments for the respondents along with the learned Advocate

General for the State as well as other counsel for the respondent-

authorities by contending that constitutional issues under Article

25 would arise in this case which could be argued at length by both

sides. However, having regard to the facts of the present case and

particularly the fact that the body of the appellant’s father is being

preserved at the mortuary of the District Hospital and Medical

College at Jagdalpur since 07.01.2025, as a resolution to the

controversy between the parties, the appellant could bury his

father at the burial ground at Karkapal which is about 20-25 kms

from Chhindwada village and the appellant would be given all

support by the State Government in that regard. In this regard,

reliance was placed on the subsequent two affidavits filed on behalf

of the respondents.

Page 17 of 37 20.1 Learned Solicitor General contended that the appellant is

prosecuting a cause which could be given a quietus by the

appellant being permitted to bury his father at Karkapal graveyard

and the matter could be thus concluded.

21. By way of reply, learned senior counsel submitted that if the

appellant desired to conduct the funeral rites of his deceased father

at Karkapal graveyard, which is now being suggested by the

respondents, there was no necessity for him to have made a

grievance on the touchstone of hostile discrimination by filing the

writ petition before the High Court. On the other hand, it is the

case of the appellant that owing to unnecessary objection and

threats being raised and orchestrated for conducting the funeral

rites of his father in the village graveyard he had made

representations to the concerned Police and other authorities for

protection which have remained unanswered. In these

circumstances the appellant was constrained to approach the High

Court which has also declined to grant any relief to the appellant.

Hence, appellant is before this Court.

21.1 Learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted with

reference to his additional affidavit that in respect of Khasra

Page 18 of 37 No.725/136, the Patwari of the Chhindwada village has prepared

a sketch indicating that an area of 1.050 ha. of the total area of

17.607 ha. of the said khasra number is government land which is

“proposed for graveyard”. It is averred that this area has been used

for decades as a graveyard and a formal declaration “is to be made

to that effect”. The document at Annexure ‘A-1’ of 2002-2003

clearly indicates that as there has been no settlement survey of the

village, therefore, the map has been prepared by hand. This

document is dated 04.05.2024 which is of an undisputed point of

time. A list of Christian deceased persons and the information

about those buried in public graveyard, as per Christian customs,

in the Gram Panchayat of Chhindwada is mentioned indicating

that there are 26 such persons who have been buried. Further,

Annexure A-3 is a hand-drawn sketch indicating that insofar as

the area allocated for the Mahra community is concerned, there is

a portion meant for Christian Mahra graveyard and another

adjacent portion meant for Hindu Mahra graveyard. Also, there

has been no objection as such for Christians to bury their dead in

the said area indicated as Christian Mahra graveyard in all these

decades. The affidavits of the Christian family members whose

Page 19 of 37 relatives have been buried in the said graveyard along with some

photographs of the graves have also been filed. According to

learned senior counsel, these affidavits indicate that the Mahra

community members who are Christians have buried their dead in

the said area as indicated in the sketch.

21.2 Learned senior counsel stressed on the fact that within the

Mahra community, there are persons following Hindu faith while

others follow the Christian faith and accordingly there is a

demarcation of space in the graveyard area meant for the entire

Mahra community.

21.3 The English translation of the affidavits are filed by the

following persons: (a) Jaldev Kumar, (b) Vijay Bais, (c) Bali Nag, (d)

Piluram Nag, (e) Samel Baghel, (f) Pila Ram, (g) Surendra, (h) Smt.

Poonam, (i) Padmini Nag, (j) Ichhawati Nag, (k) Jwala Nag, (l) Rajesh

Baghel, (m) Bhursu Kashyap, and (n) Rajkumar Nag, which may

be perused.

21.4 All the affidavits indicate the details of the members of their

families who died and were buried in the village graveyard from the

year 1986 onwards till February 2024. The photographs of some of

Page 20 of 37 the graves have also been appended to the affidavits including that

of the graves of the aunt (Shanti Baghel) and the grandfather

(Lakeshwar Baghel) of the appellant.

21.5 Learned senior counsel therefore submitted that

unnecessary objection is being raised for the burial of the

appellant’s father in the very same area which has been

demarcated for the burial of the members of Mahra community

who follow the Christian faith. He contended that the appellant

may be permitted to bury his father in the orally demarcated area

just as the other members of the family. According to learned

senior counsel, unnecessarily a controversy has been created with

regard to the burial of the appellant’s father. Consequently, the

appellant’s father who died on 07.01.2025 has not been able to

have a decent and dignified burial for over two weeks and his body

is lying in the mortuary of the District Hospital. In the

circumstances, he submitted that the objections raised by the

respondents may be overruled and the appellant may be granted

relief so that the dignity of his deceased father is not jeopardised.

Alternatively, it was submitted that appellant may be permitted to

Page 21 of 37 bury his father in his private agricultural land in Chhindwada

village.

Analysis:

22. The pleadings and affidavits filed by the respective parties

have been considered. On a perusal of the affidavit of the

respondent-State dated 19.01.2025, it is inferred that there is no

separate graveyard sanctioned exclusively for the Christians in

Gram Barahpal, Chhindwada; that the Mahra community in

Barahpal village, Chhindwada comprises of both Hindus, to a large

extent and the Christians are lesser in number. That in the said

Gram Panchayat, birth, marriage and death rituals are carried out

as per the religious traditions to which the residents belong.

22.1 It is also noted that earlier, at least 20 persons belonging to

the Christian faith have been buried in the graveyard and the Gram

Panchayat of Barahpal, Chhindwada had always orally permitted

the members of the Christian community belonging to the Mahra

community to be buried in the demarcated space in the village

graveyard and the burials have taken place since mid-1980s and

as late as in February 2024.

Page 22 of 37 22.2 But there is now hostility raised against the burial of the

appellant’s father in the very same area. When earlier the Gram

Panchayat, Barahpal, Chhindwada had permitted burial of the

dead who were followers of the Christian faith, there is no reason

to disallow in the case of the appellant’s father. The detailed

affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents when juxtaposed with

the affidavits filed by the appellant would indicate the following:

i. That in the area demarcated as a graveyard for the Mahra

community, there is an internal demarcation as (i) Hindu

Mahra graveyard; and, (ii) Christian Mahra graveyard. The

persons belonging to respective faiths are buried within the

area demarcated for the Mahra community all these decades

without there being any objection from any quarter.

ii. The demarcation may not be by a formal order passed by the

Panchayat but the allocation of the respective areas within

the area reserved for the Mahra community in the graveyard

is indicative of the fact that the Panchayat of the Barahpal

village Chhindwada has all along recognised and permitted

the burial of the dead, as per their faith, in the demarcated

Page 23 of 37 areas of the graveyard meant for the entire Mahra

community.

iii. There has never been any objection to the burial of several

other persons belonging to the Mahra Community following

Christian faith in the said graveyard from any of the

residents of the village inasmuch as the additional affidavit

of the appellant indicates that all along persons belonging to

the Mahra community following the Christian faith have

buried their dead in the area demarcated for the said

community.

iv. The second additional affidavit of the appellant also indicates

that not one Christian in Chhindwada village has used the

graveyard in village Karkapal.

22.3 In view of the aforesaid circumstances and Rule 5 of the

1999 Rules, it is observed that it is the duty of the Gram Panchayat

to ensure that a dead person of the village is buried as early as

possible and within a period of 24 hours irrespective of whatever

faith he follows. But here is a case, where on the so-called objection

of certain residents of the village the appellant is contending that

he is being denied burial of his father in the village graveyard in

Page 24 of 37 the area demarcated for the Mahra community following the

Christian faith, which is adjacent to the area orally demarcated for

the Mahra community following the Hindu faith. The relevant Rules

are reproduced as under:

“3. Disposal of corpse within 24 hours.-

(1) When a person has died in any place within the Gram Panchayat area, the occupier or owner of such place shall, to the best of his ability, arrange through the deceased person's relatives or otherwise for the corpse to be buried, burnt or otherwise disposed of in accordance with the custom of the deceased person's religion within twenty four hours of death;

or if he is unable to make such arrangement, shall within twenty four hours of death, report the fact to the Sarpanch or to the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat or to such person as the Gram Panchayat may appoint in this behalf.

(2) Every person who becomes aware that a corpse is lying in any place uncared for, shall forth with report that fact to the Sarpanch or to such person as the Gram Panchayat may appoint in this behalf and also to the occupier or owner of that place.

(3) Nothing in this rule shall apply to a case where the body of the deceased is required for the purpose of a judicial or police, enquiry

4. Gram Panchayat to arrange for disposal of corpse.-

(1) On receipt of a report under sub-rule (2) of rule 3, the Gram Panchayat shall arrange for the disposal of the corpse.

Page 25 of 37 (2) The expense's incurred for such disposal shall be recovered from the heirs of the deceased if any, as arrears of tax levied under the Act.

(3) If there be no such heirs the expenses shall be borne by the Gram Panchayat.

5. Place for disposal of corpses.-

No place other than a place approved by the Gram Panchayat by an order in writing duly published in the village, which shall be known as burning ghat or burial ground or a place determined by the Government or in the Government records shall be used for the disposal of a corpse by burning, burying or otherwise.”

22.4 Even according to Annexure P-10 dated 09.01.2025 which is

issued by the Sarpanch and Deputy Sarpanch of "Barahpal

Chhindwada Gram Panchayat No.1, 2 and 3, no graveyard of

Christian community at any place within the limits of Gram

Panchayat Chhindwada Nos.1, 2 and 3 is established yet. For

immediate reference, the said certificate is extracted as under:

“OFFICE Barahpal Chindwara Gram Panchayat No. 1, 2, 3 It is certified that till date there is no graveyard of Christian community at any place within the limits of Gram Panchayat Chindwara No. 1, Gram Panchayat Chindwada No. 2, Gram Panchayat Chindwada No. 3 under the Barahpal Chindwara.

Page 26 of 37 That Tehsil of Barahpal Chindwara comes under Darbha, P.S. Dharbha, District Baster, Chhattisgarh.

Sd/-

Sarpanch Sd/-

Deputy Sarpanch Dated: 09.01.2025”

22.5 Therefore, even according to the Panchayat, there is no

graveyard established yet for the Christian community by the Gram

Panchayat within the premises of the village Chhindwada. Even

according to learned senior counsel for the appellant, members of

the Christian community were being orally permitted to utilise a

portion of the graveyard meant for the Mahra community adjacent

to the area meant for the Hindu Mahra community. This is

probably owing to there being no formal declaration by the

Chhindwada Gram Panchayat.

22.6 It was the duty and obligation on the part of the Gram

Panchayat to have formally demarcated an area for burial of

Christians in Chhindwada village i.e. within its jurisdiction.

Instead, the respondents have stated that a designated burial

space for Christians at village Karkapal 20-25 or 40-45 kilometers

away comprised in Khasra No.9/94 admeasuring 1.96 acres - 2.15

acres, if adjoining land is also included - is sufficient to cater to the

Page 27 of 37 needs of the Christian burials of four villages and is being used for

that purpose. However, there is no material produced before this

Court to show that the burial of Christians deceased at

Chhindwada village has taken place at Karkapal. No Government

order or notification has been produced. There is also no material

produced to show that Chhindwada Gram Panchayat has, in any

manner prescribed the burial ground at Karkapal village to be the

burial ground for Christians from Chhindwada village.

Furthermore, no material has been produced before this Court to

support the averment that the graveyard in village Chhindwada

has been designated for exclusive use of members of the Hindu

community nor has any material been supplied to suggest such

custom.

22.7 Reliance placed by the respondents on Rule 8 of the 1999

Rules can be considered. Rule 8 of the 1999 Rules reads as under:

“8. Digging of grave. - Grave not to be dug within a distance of one metre from any grave or outside the place marked by the Gram Panchayat for this purpose.”

In the instant case, respondent No. 9-Gram Panchayat has

categorically stated that no place has been earmarked by it for the

purpose of graveyard for Christian community. As no place has

Page 28 of 37 been marked by the Gram Panchayat, Rule 8 cannot be applied in

the instant case. In the absence of such an earmarking by the

Gram Panchayat for Christian community in the village, the

alternative that the appellant has, is to utilise his private

agricultural land for the burial which is also a plea of the appellant.

Such a plea is reasonable.

22.8 The contra suggestion made on behalf of the respondent-State

is that the appellant could conduct funeral rites of his father at the

burial ground at Karkapal which is about 20-25 or 40-45 kms away

from the village in which the appellant resides. This option was in

any case available to the appellant. On the other hand, the

appellant sought permission to bury his father either in the area

orally demarcated for the Christian community in the graveyard

reserved for the Mahra Christian community in Chhindwada

village or alternatively, in the agricultural land of the appellant

herein. It is for this reason that the appellant approached the High

Court. This grievance of the appellant has not been appreciated by

the High Court which instead directed the appellant to conduct the

funeral and bury his father 20-25 or more kms away from his

Page 29 of 37 village. The appellant need not have approached the High Court if

he had exercised the said option.

22.9 The appellant, on the other hand, is ventilating a grievance

based on discrimination and prejudice. The High Court ought to

have appreciated the predicament and difficulty faced by the

appellant and could have found a solution in the prayers sought

for by the appellant by directing the Gram Panchayat to permit

burial either at the graveyard which was being used by Mahra

Community following the Christian faith or in the alternative,

permitted burial at the appellant’s private agricultural land.

Instead, the High Court has accepted a suggestion made by the

respondents which has the effect of displacing a practice prevailing

in Chhindwada village which was also acceptable to the Gram

Panchayat over decades. As a result, there was harmony between

all communities of the village. But the death of the appellant’s

father, who was a pastor in the village, has given rise to

disharmony in the village because it has not been suitably solved

by the village Panchayat by finding an amicable solution.

22.10 The village Panchayat has abdicated its duty to ensure burial

of appellant’s father within a period of 24 hours of his death.

Page 30 of 37 Instead, the Panchayat has been taking sides which led to the

appellant approaching the High Court and finally this Court. Had

the village Panchayat quelled the “aggressive objections” and

“threats to the appellant’s family”, the matter would have been

resolved at the village itself. Instead, the affidavit of the ASP,

Bastar, states “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”. This declaration by the

respondents is unfortunate. To my mind, this is nothing but a

violation of Article 14 and Article 15(1) of the Constitution of India

which speak of equality before the law and the equal protection of

the laws as well as places a strict prohibition of discrimination on

the ground of religion, respectively.

For ease of reference, Articles 14 and 15(1) are extracted as

under:

“14. Equality before law. — The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.

15. Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.—

Page 31 of 37 (1) The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.”

22.11 What could have been solved amicably at the village level is

now given a different taint by the respondent-authorities. Such an

attitude on the part of the respondents betrays their responsibility

towards all citizens residing in the village and smacks of hostile

discrimination and divisiveness and gives an impression that

certain sections of the village can be discriminated against. 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” which is the

essence of secularism. Secularism together with the concept of

fraternity, as envisaged under our Constitution, is a reflection of

harmony between all religious faiths leading to common

Page 32 of 37 brotherhood and unity of the social fabric in the country. It is

therefore incumbent on all citizens as well as institutions, whether

of governance or otherwise, to foster fraternity amongst the

citizens. It is brotherhood and fraternity among citizens which

would make the country stronger and more cohesive given the

diversity of the land and the need for unity.

22.12 It also needs to be observed that, in the peculiar facts and

circumstances of this case, the grievance of the appellant stems

from respondent No.9-Gram 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. This has led to social ostracisation of the appellant

and his family.

23. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this

case and particularly bearing in mind that appellant’s father’s body

is lying in the mortuary of the District Hospital since 07.01.2025

only because of the objections raised not being quelled by the Gram

Panchayat, it is just and proper that he is accorded a dignified

burial.

Page 33 of 37

24. We have heard Sri Colin Gonsalves, learned senior counsel

for the appellant, learned Solicitor General, learned Advocate

General and other counsel for the respondent(s)-State and others

and have closely perused the memorandum of Special Leave

Petition/Appeal as well as the three affidavits filed on behalf of the

respondent(s)-State and other authorities and two additional

affidavits filed on behalf of the appellant. The interest of justice

would be best served in the instant case by passing the following

order. This is by bearing in mind the statement of the respondent-

deponent in the affidavit dated 19.01.2025 in paragraph ‘13’

thereof and the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. Even

according to the respondents, if there is no designated burial

space, in such an event, permission is granted for burial in private

land. It is the case of the respondent-Gram Panchayat that there is

no formal designation of a graveyard for Christian community,

therefore, permission ought to be accorded to the members of that

community to bury their dead in their private land. Further, the

body of the appellant’s father is lying in the mortuary since

07.01.2025 for the last three weeks and he is entitled to a decent

and dignified burial. Hence, the following directions:

Page 34 of 37

(i) Therefore, the appellant shall be permitted to conduct the

funeral rites of his father in his private agricultural land at

village Chhindwada at the earliest.

(ii) However, the appellant shall not take any advantage, legally

or otherwise, for having been permitted to bury his father

in his private land.

(iii) Since the death of the appellant’s father has given rise to

the unsavoury controversy regarding the place of burial,

we direct respondent Nos.3 to 9 to provide adequate

security and protection to the appellant and his family to

carry out the funeral rites of his father at his private

agricultural land at village Chhindwada at the earliest.

(iv) It is observed that the implementation of the aforesaid

directions shall be expedited bearing in mind the peculiar

facts of this case as appellant’s father’s body is in the

mortuary since 07.01.2025.

(v) The respondent-State and its local authorities are directed

to demarcate exclusive sites as grave yards for burial of

Christians throughout the State in accordance with law.

This direction is being issued in order to avoid

Page 35 of 37 controversies such as in the instant case. The said exercise

shall be carried out within a period of two months from

today. The aforesaid direction is issued having regard to

Rule 5 and Rule 8 of the Rules.

(vi) Although, by consensus, we have issued certain directions

as per the Order of the Court, nevertheless, direction five

above shall be complied with by the respondent-State and

its authorities dehors the direction issued under Article

142 of the Constitution.

25. It is concluded by quoting from a recent judgment of this Court:

In Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs. Union of India,

(2023) 8 SCC 402, in paragraph 12, it was observed by

this Court as under:

“12. The history of any nation cannot haunt the future generations of a nation to the point that succeeding generations become prisoners of the past. The golden principle of fraternity which again is enshrined in the Preamble is of the greatest importance and rightfully finds its place in the Preamble as a constant reminder to all stakeholders that maintenance of harmony between different sections alone will lead to the imbibing of a true notion of nationhood bonding sections together for the greater good of the nation and finally, establish a sovereign democratic republic. We must constantly

Page 36 of 37 remind ourselves that courts of law, as indeed every part of the “State”, must be guided by the sublime realisation, that Bharat is a secular nation committed to securing fundamental rights to all sections as contemplated in the Constitution.”

One can also reminiscence upon the words of O.

Chinnappa Reddy, J. in Bijoe Emmanuel vs. State of

Kerala, (1986) 3 SCC 615:

“Our tradition teaches tolerance; our philosophy preaches tolerance; our Constitution practises tolerance; let us not dilute it.”

It would also be apposite to recollect the words of

Mahatma Gandhi as under:

“Our existence as embodied beings is purely momentary; what are a hundred years in eternity? But if we shatter the chains of egotism, and melt into the ocean of humanity, we share the dignity. …”

Let the State and its authorities realise the import of these

valuable thoughts.

The impugned order of the High Court is set aside.

Consequently, the appeal is disposed in the aforesaid terms.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J.

(B.V. NAGARATHNA)

NEW DELHI;

JANUARY 27, 2025.

Page 37 of 37 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 [Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 1399 of 2025]

RAMESH BAGHEL …APPELLANT(S) VERSUS

STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS …RESPONDENTS

JUDGEMENT SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

1. Leave Granted.

2. I have perused the erudite opinion authored by my esteemed sister, Her Ladyship B.V. Nagarathna, J. However, despite making a sincere endeavour, I am unable to persuade myself to subscribe to the direction(s) issued therein. Hence, this differing opinion.

Proceedings Before the High Court

3. The present proceeding(s) emanates from Writ Petition No. 152 of 2025 filed by the Appellant herein, before the Hon’ble

SLP (Civil) No. 1399 of 2025 Page 1 of 18 High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (the “High Court”) whereunder, the Appellant i.e., the son of one Late Subhash Baghel sought the following reliefs:

“10.1) That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondents to permit the petitioner and his family to carry out last rites of his father's mortal remains as per Christian religious customs at the area earmarked for Christians in the village common graveyard located in village Chhindawada Police Station and Tahsil Darbha, District Bastar (C.G.) in the interest of justice.

10.2) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondents to provide adequate police protection and local administration's support while carrying out last rites of his father's mortal remains as per Christian religious customs at the area earmarked for Christians in the village common graveyard located in village Chhindawada Police Station and Tahsil Darbha, District Bastar (C.G.) in view of the peculiar facts mentioned in this case. further, pass an order directing the respondents to provide police protection to petitioner and his family till the

SLP (Civil) No. 1399 of 2025 Page 2 of 18 continuation of threat in the interest of justice.

10.3) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem and proper in the present circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice” (the “Underlying Writ Petition”)

4. The case set up by the Appellant before the High Court in the Underlying Writ Petition was as under:

(a) The Appellant contended that he is a third-

generation Christian belonging to the Apostolic Church. The Appellants’ father i.e., Late Subhas Baghel was anointed a pastor between ’86-’87 and has since been involved in religious activities of the Church situated in their village (the “Deceased”).

(b) In village Chhindawada, a burial ground is situated which is allocated to the various sect(s) i.e., (i) the Tribal community; (ii) the Hindu community; and

(iii) the Christian community; (the “Subject Burial Ground”) and accordingly, the Appellants’ relatives namely, Late Shanti Baghel and the Appellants’ grandfather – Late Lakheshwar Baghel have been interred at the Subject Burial Ground.

SLP (Civil) No. 1399 of 2025 Page 3 of 18

(c) In this context, it was stated that the Appellants’ father passed away on 07.01.2025 at 7:00 AM due to chronic illness and other age related ailment(s). Following, the demise of the Appellants’ father, the family intended to conduct the last rites i.e., burial, at the “Christian Section” of the Subject Burial Ground.

(d) Pursuant to the aforesaid decision by the family, it was contended that several threat(s) were extended to the Appellants’ family on account of the objection(s) raised by the villagers against the burial of the Deceased at the Subject Burial Ground i.e., a site designated for the burial of Hindu Tribals.

(e) In view of the aforesaid, it was contended that Deceased’s remains are retained in the mortuary at the Medical College situated at Jagdalpur; and thus, the Appellant sought protection and assistance from the relevant authorities to ensure a dignified and proper burial of the Deceased in the “Christian Section” of the Subject Burial Ground.

5. On the other hand, the Respondent State opposed the submission of the Appellant before the Hon’ble High Court and stated that the Subject Burial Ground was meant exclusively for

SLP (Civil) No. 1399 of 2025 Page 4 of 18 Hindus; and rejected the Appellants’ contention qua the presence of any “Christian Section” within the precinct of the Subject Burial Ground. Accordingly, it was submitted that the Appellant may proceed with the last rites of the Deceased at a burial ground specifically designated for persons of the Christian Community in village Karkapal i.e., a distance of 20-25KM from village Chhindawada i.e., the Appellants’ native.

6. Vide an order dated 09.01.2025 in the Underlying Writ Petition (the “Impugned Order”), the High Court after hearing the rival contention(s) of the Parties, dismissed the Underlying Writ Petition observing inter alia that the prayer sought by the Appellant was contrary to the rigours of (i) Chhattisgarh Gram Panchayat (Regulating Places for Disposal of Dead Bodies, Carcasses, and Other Offensive Matter) Rules, 1999; and (ii) Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 – on account of the specific prohibition against the disposal of corpses by way of either a cremation or a burial in any areas other than those specifically designated. Moreover, it was observed therein that a burial ground specifically demarcated for the members of the Christian Community was available in the nearby area; and accordingly, it would not be proper to grant the Appellant the relief prayed for by way of the Underlying Writ Petition as it may cause unrest and disharmony amongst the public at large

SLP (Civil) No. 1399 of 2025 Page 5 of 18 Proceedings Before This Hon’ble Court

7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the Appellant instituted SLP (C) No. 1399 of 2025 i.e., now this instant appeal, assailing the correctness of the Impugned Order. On 17.01.2025, this Hon’ble Court passed the following order:

“Issue notice to the respondents.

Petitioner’s counsel is also permitted to serve the standing counsel for first respondent-State.

Learned counsel, Mr. Prashant Singh who is present in Court accepts notice for the respondents.

Hence, list the matter on 20.01.2025.”

8. On 20.01.2025, upon a request made by the Learned Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of the Respondent State, the matter was adjourned to 22.01.2025.

9. On 22.01.2025, in view of the urgency of the underlying lis, judgement/orders were reserved on the relief sought by the Appellant herein.

Submissions of the Parties

10. Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant made the following submissions:

SLP (Civil) No. 1399 of 2025 Page 6 of 18

(a) The Subject Burial Ground is divided into separate designated areas for members of different communities including inter alia member(s) of the Tribal Community; members of the Hindu Community; and member(s) of the Christian Community;

(b) That pursuant to an oral permission obtained from the Gram Panchayat, an area was demarcated within the Subject Burial Ground for members of the Christian Community;

(c) In order to bolster the aforesaid contention(s), Mr. Gonsalves also drew our attention to certain photograph(s); affidavits of 3rd parties; and a hand-

drawn map to support his claim vis-à-vis the presence of a “Christian Section” of the Subject Burial Ground;

(d) That the act of the villagers preventing the burial of the Deceased’s remains in the “Christian Section” of the Subject Burial Ground was violative of the fundamental rights including but not limited to the ‘right to dignity in death’;

(e) That the Impugned Order by which the Appellant has been directed to bury the Deceased’s remains at

SLP (Civil) No. 1399 of 2025 Page 7 of 18 a burial ground specifically designated for persons of the Christian Community in village Karkapal i.e., a distance of 20-25KM from village Chhindawada i.e., the Appellants’ native – is violative of his fundamental right(s);

(f) In the alternative, it was submitted that the Appellant be permitted to bury the remain(s) of the Deceased on his own land.

11. Mr. Tushar Mehta, Learned Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of the Respondent State submitted as under:

(a) That member(s) of the Tribal Community form a large segment of the demographic of the Respondent State. The said member(s) of the Tribal Community customarily bury its deceased member(s) at “Hindu-Tribal-Burial-Sites” – and the Subject Burial Ground is one such designated site for the remains of the deceased persons belonging to the Hindu Tribal Community.

(b) Mr. Mehta underscored that certain sub-sect of person(s) converted to Christianity, however their number(s) remain sparse – on an average, in a village with a population of close to 6,000 (six thousand) person(s), merely 100 (one hundred)

SLP (Civil) No. 1399 of 2025 Page 8 of 18 persons belong to the Christian Community.

Accordingly, for every cluster of 3 (three) – 4 (four) such villages, the Respondent State has demarcated/ designated one identified burial ground for all the Christian members of the community. Turning to the case at hand, it was submitted that all the persons belonging to the Christian Community from (i) village Chhindawada; (ii) village Munga; (iii) village Tirathgarh; (iv) village Darbha; and (v) village Karkapal buried the remains of their ancestors at burial ground specifically designated for persons of the Christian Community in village Karkapal situated at Khasra No. 9/94 admeasuring 1.96 acres which has further been expanded up to 2.15 acres.

(c) Mr. Mehta stressed on the fact that burial/cremation sites for all the communities including inter alia Hindus, Tribals, Christians and Muslims are governed under statutory rules. The said rules, ensure that designated spaces are utilised in a manner that is respectful towards the deceased’s rights under Article 21 and Article 25 of the Constitution of India.

SLP (Civil) No. 1399 of 2025 Page 9 of 18

(d) It was vehemently contended that burial rights align with community practices that are protected under Article 25 of the Constitution of India – accordingly, it was submitted that burial sites designated for specific communities cannot be claimed for burial of person(s) belonging to other communities or religions.

(e) Mr. Mehta while conceding that the matters pertaining to last rites including inter alia religious practices revolving around burials, is protected under Article 21 and Article 25 of the Constitution of India, submitted that the protection would not extend to arbitrary demands of individual persons. Moreover, any such demand / act would always be subject to the caveat of public order.

(f) In this context, it was submitted that, a public order situation may erupt on the ground, if the Appellant is permitted to bury the remains of the Deceased on the Subject Burial Ground. The occasional deviations in the past (if any) cannot alter the site’s primary purpose or community rights.

(g) Reliance was placed on Rule 8 of the Chhattisgarh Gram Panchayat (Regulating Places for Disposal of Dead Bodies, Carcasses and Other Offensive

SLP (Civil) No. 1399 of 2025 Page 10 of 18 Matter) Rules, 1999 to contend that the Appellants’ alternative plea to bury the Deceased in their private land was in the teeth of statutory rules, having the force of law.

(h) Lastly, Mr. Mehta submitted that the Respondent State, with a view to resolve the controversy was ready and willing to provide the Appellant with an ambulance to transport the remains of the Deceased to the burial ground specifically designated for persons of the Christian Community in village Karkapal; and further undertaken to provide security (if deemed necessary by the State Authorities.

12. The Appellant denied the offer made by the Respondent State vis-à-vis providing an ambulance to transport the remains of the Deceased.

13. During the course of argument(s), the Respondent State was asked to furnish an affidavit placing on record the particulars of the burial ground designated for members of the Christian Community in village Karkapal. The Respondent State has placed on record an affidavit dated 22.01.2025 whereunder a site situated at Khasra No. 9/94, village Karkapal admeasuring close to 2.15 acres (including the use of the adjacent land) has been

SLP (Civil) No. 1399 of 2025 Page 11 of 18 stated to be the designated burial ground for member(s) of the Christian Community (the “Designated Christian Burial Ground”).

14. Thus, at this juncture, this Court is tasked with resolving the deadlock between the Parties in view of the fact that the remains of the Deceased are lying at the Medical College situated at Jagdalpur for a prolonged period of 15 (fifteen) days.

Analysis & Directions

15. Having given my anxious considerations to the competing submissions, the fulcrum of the dispute seems to boil down to whether the fundamental right to conduct last rites as per ones’ own specific religion or custom would extend to include the “place” where such ceremonies are scheduled to take place; and thus, in the context of the present lis – the right to choose the place of burial in a blanket & unilateral manner?

16. At this juncture, it would be important to refer to the relevant rules framed by the Respondent State in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 95 read with Section 49(12) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 i.e., the Chhattisgarh Gram Panchayat (Regulating Places for Disposal of Dead Bodies, Carcasses and Other Offensive Matter) Rules, 1999

SLP (Civil) No. 1399 of 2025 Page 12 of 18 (the “CG Rules”). Rules 3, 4, 5 & 8 of CG Rules are relevant to the present controversy, the same are reproduced as under:

“3. Disposal of corpse within 24 hours.-

(1) When a person has died in any place within the Gram Panchayat area, the occupier or owner of such place shall, to the best of his ability, arrange through the deceased person’s relatives or otherwise for the corpse to be buried, burnt or otherwise disposed of in accordance with the custom of the deceased person’s religion within twenty four hours of death; or if he is unable to make such arrangement, shall within twenty-

four hours of death, report the fact to the Sarpanch or to the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat or to such a person as the Gram Panchayat may appoint in this behalf.

(2) Every person who becomes aware that a corpse is lying in any place uncared for, shall forth with report that fact to the Sarpanch or to such person as the Gram Panchayat may appoint in this behalf and also to the occupier or owner of that place.

(3) Nothing in this rule shall apply to a case where the body of the deceased is required for the purpose of a judicial or police, enquiry.

SLP (Civil) No. 1399 of 2025 Page 13 of 18

4. Gram Panchayat to arrange for disposal of corpse.-

(1) On receipt of a report under sub-rule (2) or rule 3, the Gram Panchayat shall arrange for the disposal of the corpse.

(2) The expense’s incurred for such disposal shall be recovered from the heirs of the deceased if any, as arrears of tax levied under the Act.

(3) If there be no such heirs the expenses shall be borne by the Gram Panchayat.

5. Place for disposal of corpses.-

No place other than a place approved by the Gram Panchayat by an order in writing duly published in the village, which shall be known as burning ghat or burial ground or a place determined by the Government or in the Government records shall be used for the disposal of a corpse by burning, burying or otherwise.

x-x-x

8. Digging of grave. Grave not to be dug within a distance of one metre from any grave or outside the place marked by the Gram Panchayat for this purpose.”

SLP (Civil) No. 1399 of 2025 Page 14 of 18

17. A perusal of the CG Rules would reveal that graves cannot be arbitrarily constructed; and must be established in designated areas identified by the Gram Panchayat. The rationale behind the same appears to be extremely logical – the designation of an identified areas serves a salutary purpose of ensuring a systemised procedure of conducting last rites whilst paying due deference to the surrounding sensitivities but also, importantly encompasses a public-health angle1. The earmarking of designated areas for every community in every village is an evolutionary process that is not perfect and slow-moving, however, it seeks to delicately handle aspects of human life, and beyond which must receive adequate judicial attention. Thus, with the respect, I am unable to appreciate the need to exercise of our equitable jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to overcome the prohibition encapsulated under Rule 8 of the CG Rules; and permit the Appellant to bury the remains of the Deceased on his private land, more-so in light of the fact that a designated burial ground is present within the vicinity i.e., merely 20-25KM away in village Karkapal.

18. There can be no qualm about the fact that procedures pertaining to last rites; and ceremonies involved, from a part of the right(s) protected under Part III of the Constitution of India.

1 The Impact of Cemeteries on the Environment and Public Health, WHO, EUR/ICP/EHNA010401(A)

SLP (Civil) No. 1399 of 2025 Page 15 of 18 However, to claim that such right(s) would encompass the unqualified right to choose the “place” of such ceremony (including burial) would prima facie appear to stretch constitutional limits beyond what was 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 practices4. Thus, 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. Nonetheless, a person / community cannot altogether be denied a place to carry out last rites including inter alia burials - on the contrary, the State has a duty to provide members of all religious communities with identified places to carry out last rites within the confines and limits of reason and rationality. In the present case, the Respondent State has informed us of an identified burial ground for members of the Christian Community i.e., the Designated Christian Burial Ground situated in village Karkapal merely at a

2 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 SCR (2) 621; and K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 3 Rev. Stainislaus vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1977) 1 SCC 677 4 Sri Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore, AIR 1958 SC 255

SLP (Civil) No. 1399 of 2025 Page 16 of 18 distance of 20-25KM from the Deceased’s native village. In view thereof, I see no reason why the appellant ought to be permitted to claim an absolute or unqualified right in respect of the Deceased’s’ exact place of burial.

19. This Court is conscious of the responsibility on its’ shoulders and would loathe to be swayed by sweeping and illusionary claims of a potential “public order” eruption, however, in the present case, it cannot be said that the Respondent State have propped up the “public order” argument as a ruse. The maintenance of “public order” is paramount and in the larger interest of the society. Accordingly, without commenting on the underlying sensitivities, and with a view to provide the Deceased with a decent and dignified burial, the following direction(s) appear to be just, fair and reasonable:

(a) The Appellant and his family be provided with an appropriate site within the Designated Christian Burial Ground situated at village Karkapal for the burial of the Deceased’s remains;

(b) The Respondent State is directed to ensure that the Appellant and his family are provided with all ancillary logistical support for the purpose of transferring the remains of the Deceased from the mortuary at the Medical College situated at

SLP (Civil) No. 1399 of 2025 Page 17 of 18 Jagdalpur to Designated Christian Burial Ground situated at village Karkapal;

(c) The Respondent State shall grant the Appellant and his family members adequate police protection which shall be reviewed by the concerned authorities after a period of 7 (seven) days;

(d) The Respondent State shall take adequate measures to ensure no public order incident takes place at either village Karkapal or village Chhindawada;

and

(e) The Respondent State is directed to ensure that the burial of the remains of the Deceased takes place at the earliest. The Appellant and his family members are directed to cooperate with the authorities of the Respondent State who shall handle the situation with the sensitivity it deserves.

20. Consequently, the appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms and the Impugned Order of the High Court is upheld.

……………………………………J. [SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA]

NEW DELHI JANUARY 27, 2025

SLP (Civil) No. 1399 of 2025 Page 18 of 18 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.1399 of 2025)

RAMESH BAGHEL …APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & OTHERS …RESPONDENTS

ORDER OF THE COURT NAGARATHNA, J.

1. The operative portion of the judgment of Nagarathna, J. reads

as under:

“(i) Therefore, the appellant shall be permitted to conduct the funeral rites of his father in his private agricultural land at village Chhindwada at the earliest.

(ii) However, the appellant shall not take any advantage, legally or otherwise, for having been permitted to bury his father in his private land.

(iii) Since the death of the appellant’s father has given rise to the unsavoury controversy regarding the place of burial, we direct respondent Nos.3 to 9 to provide adequate security and protection to the appellant and his family to carry out the funeral rites of his father at his private agricultural land at village Chhindwada at the earliest.

1

(iv) It is observed that the implementation of the aforesaid directions shall be expedited bearing in mind the peculiar facts of this case as appellant’s father’s body is in the mortuary since 07.01.2025.

(v) The respondent-State and its local authorities are directed to demarcate exclusive sites as grave yards for burial of Christians throughout the State in accordance with law. This direction is being issued in order to avoid controversies such as in the instant case. The said exercise shall be carried out within a period of two months from today. The aforesaid direction is issued having regard to Rule 5 and Rule 8 of the Rules.

(vi) Although, by consensus, we have issued certain directions as per the Order of the Court, nevertheless, direction five above shall be complied with by the respondent-State and its authorities dehors the direction issued under Article 142 of the Constitution.”

2. The operative portion of the judgment of Satish Chandra

Sharma, J. reads as under:

“18. This Court is conscious of the responsibility on its' shoulders and would loathe to be swayed by sweeping and illusionary claims of a potential "public order" eruption, however, in the present case, it cannot be said that the Respondent State have propped up the "public order" argument as a ruse. The maintenance of "public order" is paramount and in the larger interest of the society. Accordingly, without commenting on the underlying sensitivities, and with a view a to provide the Deceased with a decent and dignified burial the following direction(s) appear to be just, fair and reasonable:

(a) The Appellant and his family be provided with an appropriate site within the Designated

2 Christian Burial Ground situated at village Karkapal for the burial of the Deceased's remains;

(b) The Respondent State is directed to ensure that the Appellant and his family are provided with all ancillary logistical support for the purpose of transferring the remains of the Deceased from the mortuary at the Medical College situated at Jagdalpur to Designated Christian Burial Ground situated at village Karkapal;

(c) The Respondent State shall grant the Appellant and his family members adequate police protection which shall be reviewed by the concerned authorities after a period of 7 (seven) days;

(d) The Respondent State shall take adequate measures to ensure no public order incident takes place at either village Karkapal or village Chindwada; and

(e) The Respondent State is directed to ensure that the burial of the remains of the Deceased takes place at the earliest. The Appellant and his family members are directed to cooperate with the authorities of the Respondent State who shall handle the situation with the sensitivity it deserves.”

3. There is no consensus between the members of this Bench

on the place of resting of the appellant’s father who died on

07.01.2025. Bearing in mind the fact that the deceased has been

kept in mortuary for the last three weeks since 07.01.2025 and in

order to accord an expeditious and dignified burial of the deceased,

3 we agree to issue the following directions in exercise of our powers

under Article 142 of the Constitution of India:

(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.

4. The aforesaid directions issued by this Bench are having

regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case

4 and bearing in mind judicial stewardship and to alleviate the

predicament and suffering of the appellant and his family.

The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J.

(B.V. NAGARATHNA)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J.

(SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA)

NEW DELHI;

JANUARY 27, 2025

5