On January 27, 2025, the Supreme Court delivered a split verdict concerning a Christian man's plea to bury his deceased father in their native village of Chindwara, Chhattisgarh. The deceased, a pastor from the Mahra tribal community, had been lying in a mortuary since January 7 due to disputes over his burial site.
Background of the Case
The appellant sought to bury his father either in the village's burial ground, where their ancestors rest, or on their private agricultural land. However, the local gram panchayat and villagers objected, asserting that the existing burial ground was exclusively for Hindu tribals and not for Christians. The Chhattisgarh High Court had earlier directed the burial to occur at a designated Christian burial site in Karkapal village, approximately 20-25 kilometers from Chindwara. Dissatisfied, the appellant escalated the matter to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court's Divergent Opinions
Justice B.V. Nagarathna supported the appellant's request to bury his father on their private land, emphasizing that the gram panchayat had not allocated a specific burial area for Christians. She criticized the state and local authorities for failing to uphold secularism and fraternity, stating,
"It is brotherhood and fraternity among citizens which would make the country stronger and more cohesive given the diversity of the land and the need for unity."
Conversely, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma opined that burials should occur only in officially designated areas, aligning with Chhattisgarh Panchayat rules. He contended that individuals do not possess an inherent right to choose burial sites outside these designated zones.
Given the urgency, with the body remaining unburied for over three weeks, the bench decided against referring the case to a larger bench. Instead, they issued a directive under Article 142 of the Constitution:
- The appellant was instructed to bury his father at the Christian burial ground in Karkapal village.
- The state and local authorities were mandated to provide necessary logistical support and police protection to facilitate the burial.
The court emphasized that this decision was based on the unique circumstances of the case and aimed to alleviate the appellant's predicament.
