Dead Too Are Entitled to Dignity: Madras High Court Protects 70-Year-Old Burial Ground from Erasure

“Silence of the Grave Must Be Respected — Temporal Sanctity Cannot Be Bulldozed”, Madras High Court delivered a deeply reasoned and constitutionally anchored judgment safeguarding a long-standing burial ground in Karumandisellipalayam (Special Grade) Town Panchayat, Erode District.

Justice V. Lakshminarayanan held that mere revenue classification of land as “Cart Track Poromboke” does not efface its established and customary usage as a burial ground for over 70 years. The Court invoked Articles 17, 21 and 243W of the Constitution, the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998, and even criminal provisions corresponding to Section 297 IPC, to emphasise that both the living and the dead are entitled to dignity.

The Court disposed of W.P.No.37501 of 2025 with affirmative directions to protect and reclassify the burial area, while dismissing the other two writ petitions seeking to prevent such usage.

“All Counsel Were Barking Up a Wrong Tree”: Panchayats Act Inapplicable

At the outset, the Court clarified that Karumandisellipalayam is a Special Grade Town Panchayat governed not by the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, but by the District Municipalities Act and the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998.

Justice Lakshminarayanan observed that substantial arguments were addressed under the Panchayats Act, but they were “in vain,” as the statutory regime applicable was that governing urban local bodies.

The Court traced the constitutional evolution post the 74th Amendment, noting that Town Panchayats enjoy constitutional status under Article 243W read with the XII Schedule, which specifically mandates provision and maintenance of burial and cremation grounds.

Revenue Records vs. Ground Reality: “Classification Does Not Change Character”

Though Survey Nos.621/3 and 628/8 were classified in the ‘A’ register as “Cart Track Poromboke,” evidence placed before the Court told a different story.

A 2000 Town Panchayat resolution (No.101/2000) authorised laying of a “Cemetery Road” connecting burial sites. The cash book, Road/Street ledger, and Collector’s report confirmed utilisation of State funds for improving access to the burial ground.

The District Collector’s inspection revealed that portions of both survey numbers had been used as burial ground for over 70 years, including usage by members of the Arunthathiyar (Scheduled Caste) community. The report confirmed that graves existed and that portions had been levelled using machinery.

The Court concluded that a burial ground exists in the said survey numbers “at least from the year 2000,” and in fact much earlier.

“Mere classification in revenue records cannot efface factual and customary use.”

Section 172 of the Urban Local Bodies Act: No Blanket Prohibition Without Notification

Under Section 172 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998, burial grounds must be registered or licensed, and no new burial ground can be opened without permission.

However, the Court clarified that unless the Council issues a notification under Section 172(3) banning burial in areas other than a designated modern crematorium, there can be no absolute prohibition.

“It is the subjective satisfaction of the Council whether it wants to ban cremation in areas other than the modern cremation area.”

Since no such notification had been issued, the plea to prevent burial altogether was rejected.

“Temporal Sanctity of a Grave Has Been Violated”

The most disturbing aspect, the Court noted, was the levelling of graves and alleged disturbance of burial sites amidst disputes between rival landowners.

The Court invoked its earlier doctrine of “temporal sanctity of a grave,” observing that destruction of graves not only disrespects the dead but deeply wounds the living relatives.

“The great religions that bore sway in this country always respected the dignity of the dead.”

Citing Pt. Parmanand Katara v. Union of India, the Court reiterated that Article 21 extends to the dead. It further noted that authorities ought to have initiated criminal proceedings under Section 301 BNSS (corresponding to Section 297 IPC) for disturbing burial places.

Article 17 and SC/ST Act: Burial Rights Are Constitutional Rights

The Collector’s report revealed that portions of the land were used by members of the Arunthathiyar community. The Court emphasised that denial or destruction of burial sites of Scheduled Caste communities may amount to practising untouchability, prohibited under Article 17.

The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 criminalises denial of access to public burial grounds. The Court observed that the District Collector is empowered and obligated to act in such cases and deprecated failure to invoke appropriate provisions.

Constitutional and Municipal Duty: Article 243W and XII Schedule

Justice Lakshminarayanan underscored that burial and cremation grounds are not discretionary amenities but constitutional obligations of urban local bodies.

Section 172(4) of the 1998 Act mandates the Council to provide and maintain burial grounds within municipal limits.

“It is also the constitutional duty of a Town Panchayat as mandated under Article 243W read with XII Schedule to provide for such areas.”

The Court disposed of W.P.No.37501 of 2025 with directions that:

The District Collector shall ensure segregation and proper fencing of the burial/cremation area in S.Nos.621/3 and 628/8.

The Town Panchayat shall maintain the burial ground free from encroachment and garbage.

Revenue authorities shall act on the 14.10.2025 resolution and exclude the burial area from classification as cart track.

The Collector shall initiate appropriate action against persons responsible for levelling the graves. W.P.Nos.36402 of 2025 and 44377 of 2025 were dismissed.

This judgment stands as a powerful reaffirmation that administrative records cannot erase lived history, customary practice, and constitutional guarantees.

By weaving together Article 21, Article 17, Article 243W, municipal statutes, criminal law, and the SC/ST Act, the Court elevated the dispute beyond a land classification issue to a question of dignity, equality, and constitutional morality.

The ruling sends a clear message: burial grounds are not mere parcels of land — they are spaces of memory, faith, and constitutional protection, and “the silence of the grave must not be disturbed by private rivalries or administrative apathy.”

Date of Decision: 11/02/2026