Supreme Court Questions Rejection Of Burial Plea For Christian Man’s Father

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court expressed its discontent over the Chhattisgarh High Court’s dismissal of a Christian man’s plea to bury his deceased father in the family’s native village.

The bench, comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, lamented that the deceased’s body had been lying in a mortuary for 12 days without resolution from the state authorities or the high court.

The Court was particularly pained that the matter had to be brought before the Supreme Court for the burial of a father. It questioned the state’s handling of such matters, asking, “What was the position all these decades? Why is this objection being raised only now?”

The case involves Ramesh Baghel, a Christian man, who challenged the Chhattisgarh High Court’s decision to deny him permission to bury his father in his village, following his family’s religious practices. The High Court rejected the plea, citing concerns over law and order, as some villagers objected to the burial in the common area. The court had suggested an alternative burial ground in a nearby village, 20-25 kilometers away, designated for Christians.

During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing Chhattisgarh, argued that the burial ground in the petitioner’s village was intended for the Hindu tribal community, not Christians. When questioned by the Court about the possibility of burying the father on private land, Mehta explained that the law prohibits such burials, stating, “Once you bury someone, the character of the land changes; it becomes sacred and poses health risks.”

Justice Nagarathna, however, rejected this argument, stating, “The third day after cremation, nothing remains. Burial on private land is permitted.”

Furthermore, Mehta contended that the petitioner’s case was not merely about individual rights but could set a precedent for future conflicts. He reiterated that Christians from the petitioner’s village traditionally buried their dead 20 km away in the designated burial site.

Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, representing the petitioner, refuted the state’s stance, arguing that the state was undermining the secular tradition that had long existed in the village. He presented photographs of graves of other deceased family members, all marked with Christian symbols, buried in the same village burial ground.

This sparked a heated exchange between Gonsalves and Mehta. Supreme Court adjourned the hearing, agreeing to revisit the case on Wednesday after Mehta requested time to file a more detailed response.

The case has raised significant questions about the intersection of religious rights, traditional practices, and the state’s role in regulating burial spaces.