The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a petition filed by Ramesh Baghel, a Christian resident of Chhindawada village, seeking permission to bury his father in the Christian-designated section of the village graveyard. The court’s decision, emphasizing communal harmony, came amid fierce local opposition to the burial.
Case Background
The case revolved around the burial of Subhash Baghel, a pastor of the New Apostolic Church, who passed away on January 7, 2025. The petitioner, his son, sought to perform his father’s last rites according to Christian customs at the designated burial ground within the Chhindawada village graveyard. The Baghel family had previously buried other relatives in the same section of the graveyard.
Local villagers objected to the burial, threatening the family with violence and asserting that no Christian burial could take place within the village. Despite police deployment, tensions escalated, and the petitioner alleged that authorities pressured the family to remove the body from the village. With no immediate resolution, the body was kept in a district hospital mortuary, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court for relief.
Key Legal Issues
1. Right to Burial under Religious Customs: The petitioner argued that as a Christian, he had the constitutional right to bury his father in the designated Christian section of the village graveyard. The court examined whether this right was enforceable under local rules.
2. Gram Panchayat’s Responsibility: Under the Chhattisgarh Gram Panchayat (Regulating Places for Disposal of Dead Bodies, Carcasses, and Other Offensive Matter) Rules, 1999, the Gram Panchayat is tasked with facilitating the burial of deceased persons in accordance with their religious practices. The court deliberated on whether the Gram Panchayat had fulfilled its duty in this case.
3. Communal Harmony vs. Individual Rights: The case raised a critical legal question: Should individual religious rights be overridden in favor of maintaining public order and preventing communal disharmony?
4. Designated Burial Grounds: The court analyzed whether the petitioner could be compelled to use an alternative burial ground 20-25 kilometers away, despite his preference for the village graveyard.
Court Observations
Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, while acknowledging the petitioner’s claim to religious customs, highlighted the broader implications for communal harmony. The court observed:
“It will not be proper to grant relief as sought for by the petitioner, which may cause unrest and disharmony in the public at large.”
The court referenced provisions of the 1999 Rules, emphasizing that burial grounds must be registered and designated by local authorities. It also cited legal precedents, including cases from Tamil Nadu and Kerala, where courts upheld the restriction of burials to licensed areas.
The court noted that the petitioner had the option to bury his father in the Christian-designated burial ground in Karkapal village, located 20-25 kilometers from Chhindawada. It concluded that this alternative ensured compliance with the law while maintaining public peace.
Decision
The court denied the petitioner’s request to conduct the burial in Chhindawada village, directing the family to use the designated Christian burial ground in Karkapal. The petition was dismissed with the court emphasizing that allowing the burial in Chhindawada could provoke unrest.
