Safiya Malik

The High Court of Madras Division Bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan dismissed writ petitions challenging the construction of the Isha Foundation’s “Kalabhairavar Dhagana Mandapam”, a crematorium facility proposed in a village in Coimbatore district. The petitioners sought to quash the local body’s permission and related approvals, contending that the site fell within 90 metres of dwelling houses and a drinking water source and that the construction should be removed. The Bench held that the Tamil Nadu Village Panchayats (Provision of Burial and Burning Grounds) Rules, 1999 do not bar licensing a cremation ground within 90 metres; the requirement is that the place be licensed by the concerned village panchayat, which removes the distance objection.

A batch of writ petitions was filed before the High Court of Judicature at Madras challenging the permission granted by the local panchayat authorities and consequential consent issued by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board for the establishment of a gasifier crematorium in a village panchayat area. The petitioners objected to the construction and operation of the crematorium on the ground that it was located within ninety metres of dwelling houses and water sources, which they contended was prohibited under Rule 7 of the Tamil Nadu Village Panchayats (Provision of Burial and Burning Grounds) Rules, 1999.

Also Read: S.175(4) BNSS | Magistrates To Seek Superior’s Report Before Ordering Probe Where Alleged Offence Arose During Public Servant’s Duties: Supreme Court

The petitioners further raised concerns relating to suitability of the site, ecological sensitivity of the area, and administrative impropriety in the grant of permission. The respondent authorities and the private respondent supported the grant of licence and consent, contending that the crematorium was duly licensed under Rule 5 of the Rules and that the issue raised by the petitioners was already settled by a Full Bench decision of the same Court. The dispute thus centered on the interpretation and interplay between Rules 5 and 7 of the 1999 Rules and the legality of the permissions granted.

The Court recorded that “the only ground raised to challenge the establishment of crematorium by private respondent is that it violates Rule 7, as it could not be established within a prohibited distance of 90 meters.” It noted the submission on behalf of the respondents that “this issue is no longer res integra and stands concluded by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Jagadheeswari v. B. Babu Naidu.”

After extracting Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Village Panchayats (Provision of Burial and Burning Grounds) Rules, 1999, the Court referred to Rule 7 and observed that “Rule 7 prohibits burning or burying any corpse, in any place, within 90 meters of the dwelling place or source of drinking water supply other than a place licensed as a burial and burning ground.”

Relying on the Full Bench interpretation, the Court recorded that “both Rules 5 and 7 start with a negative clause,” and that “the place licensed as burial and burning ground is exempted from the 90 meters restriction.” The Court further noted the finding of the Full Bench that “whoever prefers a new place whether private or public to be used for burying or burning the dead, license from the Panchayat is a pre-requisite.”

The Bench stated that “it is very clear that except the place which has already been registered under Rule 4 or a new place where license is obtained following the procedures contemplated under Rules 5(2), (3) and (4), no body can be buried or burnt in the place which is neither been registered or granted license.”

On this basis, the Court concluded that “the argument of petitioner that no permission could be granted within that distance, is no longer available to be pressed into service.” It further observed that “all other submissions made are with regard to suitability and administrative consideration of local bodies, with which, we would not interfere.” The Court also recorded that “addition of a crematorium, that too gasifier crematorium is only to the benefit of the community and cannot be said to be against their interest.”

Also Read: Encroachment Cannot Be Permitted On Public Street Even If It Has Religious Character: Madras High Court

The Court directed that “petitions are dismissed.” and “there shall be no order as to costs. W.M.P. No.21262 of 2024 filed by petitioners to join together and file a single writ petition is allowed as separate court fee has been filed. The other interim applications are also dismissed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. M. Purushothaman, Mr. E. Vijay Anand, Mrs. V. Yamuna Devi, Mr. N. Jothi, Senior Counsel, assisted by respective counsel on record

For the Respondents: Mr. J. Ravindran, Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr. V. Gunasekar, Standing Counsel; Mr. R. Parthasarathy, Senior Counsel; Mr. Satish Parasaran, Senior Counsel; Additional Government Pleaders and Special Government Pleaders as recorded

Case Title: Murugammal and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu
Case Number: W.P. Nos. 19414, 14353 & 18565 of 2024
Bench: Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Justice G. Arul Murugan