The plea of a son of a Christian Pastor from Chhattisgarh, seeking to bury his father either in their native village of Chindwara or on their private agricultural land remained inconclusive with the Supreme Court giving a split verdict on the plea on 27th January, 2025. The bench, of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, could not reach a consensus, but passed a direction for the burial of the deceased, whose body had been lying in the mortuary since 7th January, 2025.

The factual matrix of this case is that the appellant, a Christian from Chhattisgarh, of the Mahra Christian tribal community wanted to bury his father, in the Christian burial area of their village graveyard in Chindwara, saying that all their ancestors were buried there. The Pastor had passed away on 7th January, 2025, due to prolonged illness. However, his request was met with objections from the gram panchayat and violent opposition from some villagers, who threatened the family and coerced him to remove the body from the village.

Despite reporting the matter to the police, the body remained in the mortuary for over three weeks. The Chhattisgarh High Court, upon hearing the case, noted that there was no separate burial ground for Christians in Chhindwara but directed the family to use the designated burial ground for Christians in Karkapal, a village situated 20-25 kilometers away. Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court, where after the hearing of 22th January 2025 the ‘order was reserved’.

Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, representing the appellant, argued that the burial should take place in the native village, where the appellant’s ancestors had been buried, or alternatively, on the petitioner’s private land. He cautioned that allowing the burial only in Karkapal would set a troubling precedent, where Dalits who convert to Christianity could face restrictions on where they could bury their dead in their villages.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta on behalf of the State of Chhattisgarh, argued that the burial could take place at the State’s expense, with full police protection, but it must occur at the designated burial ground for Christian Tribals in Karkapal. He emphasized that the burial must be in accordance with Article 25 of the Constitution, which allows exceptions for public order.

Justice Nagarathna, in her opinion, noted that since the gram panchayat had not designated a burial ground for the Christian community in the appellant’s village, the only option available to the appellant was to bury his father on his private land, which she considered reasonable. She criticized the State's suggestion to bury the body in Karkapal, 20-25 km away, and stated that the High Court should have directed the gram panchayat to either permit burial in the Mahra community’s burial ground or allow the petitioner to bury the body on his private land.

Justice Nagarathna further highlighted that the village panchayat had "abdicated its duty" and was taking sides in the matter. She also emphasized that denying the appellant access to the burial ground violated Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, which ensure equality and protection against discrimination. In her view, such an approach went against the principles of secularism and fraternity, which are fundamental to the unity and cohesion of the nation.

Referring to the Supreme Court’s observation in the Ashwini Upadhyay case, Justice Nagarathna reaffirmed that India is a secular nation committed to protecting the fundamental rights of all communities, as envisaged in the Constitution. She also quoted Justice Chinnappa Reddy’s famous line from the Bijoe Emmanuel case: "Our tradition teaches tolerance, our Constitution teaches tolerance, let us not dilute it," stressing the importance of upholding tolerance and secularism in the country.

Justice Nagarathna issued the following directions:

1. The appellant shall be permitted to conduct a funeral at his private agricultural land in Chindwara.

2. Respondents to give adequate security and protection at village Chindwara.

3. Respondents are directed to demarcate areas for the burial of Christians to avoid controversy. Carry out the said exercise within 2 months.

Justice Sharma, however, took a different view, stating that according to the Chhattisgarh Panchayat rules, burial can only take place at designated locations. Therefore, an individual cannot claim an unrestricted right to bury the body at any location of their choosing. He emphasized the importance of adhering to the established rules governing such matters.

Throughout the hearings however, the Court expressed regret over the case, stating it was painful that the appellant had to approach the Supreme Court to bury his father. The Court emphasized its desire to resolve the matter amicably so that the body, which had been in the mortuary since 7th January, 2025 could receive a decent burial.

In conclusion, the final order passed by the bench stated:

“There is no consensus between the members of this Bench on the place of resting of the appellant’s father who died on

07.01.2025. Bearing in mind the fact that the deceased has been kept in mortuary for the last three weeks since 07.01.2025 and in order to accord an expeditious and dignified burial of the deceased, we agree to issue the following directions in exercise of our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India:

(i) The appellant shall conduct the funeral rites and bury his deceased father at the burial ground at village Karkapal.

(ii) The respondent-State and its local authorities shall ensure that the appellant and his family are provided with all logistical support for the purpose of transferring the body of the deceased from the mortuary at the Medical College situated in Jagdalpur to the Christian burial ground situated at village Karkapal, if so desired by the appellant.

(iii) Adequate police protection shall be accorded in this regard.

(iv) The respondent-State and its authorities shall ensure that the burial of the deceased father shall take place at the earliest.

The aforesaid directions issued by this Bench are having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and bearing in mind judicial stewardship and to alleviate the predicament and suffering of the appellant and his family.”

Case Details: Ramesh Baghel v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors., SLP(C) No. 1399/2025

Advocate for the Appellant: Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves and Advocate Umesh Kumar

Advocate for the Respondent: Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta