Safiya Malik

The Supreme Court delivered  the verdict,  regarding the burial of a pastor on Monday (27.01.2025) whose body has been kept in a mortuary since January 7, 2025. The Court directed that the burial take place at the designated Christian burial ground in Karkapal village, about 20 kilometers from the pastor's native village, Chhindawada.

While Justice B.V. Nagarathna allowed burial on the family’s private agricultural land, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma opined that the burial should be conducted only at the designated Christian burial ground. In light of the urgency and the peculiar circumstances of the case, the bench chose not to refer the matter to a larger bench and passed a consensual order under Article 142 of the Constitution to resolve the issue expeditiously.

The petitioner, Ramesh Baghel, sought permission to bury his father in the burial ground of their native village, arguing that their family ancestors, including his aunt and grandfather, had been buried there. However, objections arose from villagers who claimed that the burial ground was reserved exclusively for Hindu tribals.

When the family proposed burying the body on their private agricultural land, the villagers objected again, leading to heightened tensions. The situation forced the family to approach the police, who allegedly exerted pressure to relocate the burial outside the village. Following this, the petitioner approached the Chhattisgarh High Court, which directed the burial to take place at the Christian burial ground in Karkapal. Dissatisfied with this order, the petitioner (the son of the Pastor) moved the Supreme Court.

Justice Nagarathna criticized the state and the gram panchayat for failing to address the issue at the local level, calling their inaction a violation of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. She noted: “The village panchayat has abdicated its duty to ensure the burial of the appellant's father within 24 hours and instead has taken sides.”

She directed that the burial be permitted on the family’s private land, stating: “The gram panchayat and local authorities must demarcate burial grounds for Christians within two months to prevent similar disputes in the future.”

She also invoked the principle of secularism, quoting the Supreme Court’s observations in the Ashwini Upadhyay case: “Bharat is a secular nation committed to securing fundamental rights to all sections as contemplated in the Constitution.”

Justice Sharma, however, held that the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Rules required burial only at designated areas. He stated: “A person cannot claim an absolute right to bury a body at a location of their choice if it contradicts local regulations and public order considerations.”

Acknowledging the prolonged delay in the burial and the body’s continued presence in the mortuary, the bench issued the following order under Article 142 of the Constitution:

1. The burial must take place at the designated Christian burial ground in Karkapal village.

2. The state and local authorities are directed to provide logistical support and full police protection to ensure the burial is conducted without incident.

The Court stated that this direction was issued based on the specific facts and circumstances of the case, aiming to ensure a dignified and timely burial.

The Supreme Court expressed dismay at the need for judicial intervention in such a personal matter, urging local authorities to act promptly in similar situations to prevent unnecessary litigation.

Case Title: Ramesh Baghel vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
Case Number: SLP(C) No. 1399/2025
Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma