Denying Burial to a Man of Peace Violates Constitutional Equality and Dignity: Supreme Court Rules on Burial Rights

In a significant judgment delivered on January 27, 2025, the Supreme Court of India resolved a contentious burial rights dispute in Ramesh Baghel vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others. The case highlighted the intersection of constitutional guarantees of equality and religious freedom, statutory obligations, and public order concerns. The dispute arose when Ramesh Baghel, a Christian, sought to bury his father, a pastor, in the village graveyard of Chhindwada, Chhattisgarh. Local villagers and the Gram Panchayat objected, claiming no formal designation of burial grounds for Christians in the village, forcing the family to keep the body in a mortuary for over three weeks.

The judgment delivered by a divided bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma underscored the tensions between individual rights and community concerns, while ultimately invoking Article 142 of the Constitution to provide a resolution.

A Man of Faith Denied Dignity in Death
The appellant, Ramesh Baghel, approached the court after villagers and the Gram Panchayat of Chhindwada obstructed the burial of his father, Subhash Baghel, who had passed away on January 7, 2025. The pastor, a third-generation Christian, had served as a spiritual leader and advocate of harmony in his village for decades.

The appellant argued that Christian burials had historically been allowed in a demarcated area within the village graveyard under oral permissions from the Panchayat. Supporting his claim, he presented photographs and affidavits showing the graves of his ancestors and relatives in the same burial ground. The Gram Panchayat, however, issued a certificate denying the existence of a Christian burial area, prompting the Chhattisgarh High Court to direct the burial at a designated Christian graveyard in Karkapal, 20–25 kilometers away.

The Supreme Court was thus called upon to determine whether the appellant’s father could be buried in his native village and whether such a denial violated Articles 14 (Equality), 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination), 21 (Right to Life), and 25 (Religious Freedom) of the Constitution.

"Constitutional Guarantees of Equality Must Not Be Sacrificed at the Altar of Hostile Majoritarianism": Justice B.V. Nagarathna

Justice Nagarathna, delivering the majority opinion, emphasized that the Gram Panchayat's failure to formally designate burial grounds for Christians had allowed discriminatory practices to take root. She observed:

"The appellant and his community have lived in Chhattisgarh for generations. The refusal to allow them a dignified burial in their native village, while their ancestors were buried there, constitutes a violation of Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution. Equality before law and non-discrimination are the cornerstones of our democracy, and their denial to a marginalized community cannot be justified."

She was critical of the Gram Panchayat's abdication of its duty under Rule 5 of the Chhattisgarh Gram Panchayat (Regulating Places for Disposal of Dead Bodies) Rules, 1999, which requires local bodies to demarcate burial grounds for all communities. She remarked:

"The right to a dignified burial is not merely a legal entitlement but a reflection of the values of fraternity and secularism enshrined in our Constitution. Death is the great equalizer, and no person or community should face indignity or ostracism even in death."

To resolve the impasse, Justice Nagarathna directed that the appellant be allowed to bury his father on his private agricultural land in Chhindwada, with police protection. She also ordered the State of Chhattisgarh to demarcate burial grounds for Christians across the State within two months to prevent such disputes in the future.

"No Absolute Right to Choose Burial Location Exists Under Articles 21 and 25": Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

"The right to burial is not absolute and must align with public order and statutory regulations." – Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Sharma stressed the importance of adhering to statutory regulations and maintaining public order. He stated:

"The right to burial, while integral to religious practices under Article 25, cannot override statutory mandates or community harmony. Designated burial grounds ensure systematic management and prevent communal discord."

He upheld the High Court's decision directing the burial at the Christian graveyard in Karkapal, emphasizing that the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Rules require burials to take place only in designated spaces. Justice Sharma added:

"The appellant cannot claim an absolute right to bury the deceased in his village graveyard. The State has a duty to balance individual rights with public order and to ensure that burial practices align with statutory provisions."

He also highlighted the risk of communal tensions if the burial was allowed in Chhindwada and underscored the need for judicial restraint in matters involving sensitive social dynamics.

Consensus: Burial Directed at Karkapal, But State Ordered to Act

Recognizing the urgency of providing the deceased with a dignified burial, the bench invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to issue the following directives by consensus:

•    The deceased’s remains will be buried at the Christian burial ground in Karkapal, with police protection and logistical support provided by the State.
•    The State must formally demarcate burial grounds for Christians across Chhattisgarh within two months, in accordance with Rule 5 of the 1999 Rules.

The court noted: "This order is being passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, and to alleviate the suffering of the appellant and his family."

The judgment in Ramesh Baghel vs. State of Chhattisgarh underscores the judiciary's role in balancing individual constitutional rights with community harmony and statutory obligations. Justice Nagarathna's emphasis on equality and fraternity as constitutional values serves as a powerful reminder of India's secular ethos, while Justice Sharma's focus on public order and governance highlights the practical challenges of managing pluralistic societies.

Ultimately, the judgment represents a pragmatic compromise, ensuring both the dignity of the deceased and the maintenance of public order. It also sets a precedent for the urgent need to address systemic failures in ensuring equal rights for minority communities in matters of faith and tradition.

Date of Decision: January 27, 2025