Holding

The suggestion to shift the two graves cannot be regarded as irreligious or destructive of any fundamental rights of the Sunnis, and the court may order the relocation to preserve public order.

Summary

The Supreme Court was asked to decide whether two graves on a disputed plot in Varanasi could be shifted to alleviate recurring sectarian violence between Shia and Sunni communities. The Court held that moving the graves was not irreligious nor a violation of Sunni fundamental rights, as Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution are subject to public order. It observed that the right not to disturb a corpse is not absolute, citing CrPC s.176(3) which permits exhumation for public interest. The Court affirmed its jurisdiction to implement the earlier injunctions and to give directions for the grave relocation as a permanent solution to maintain public order. Consequently, the petition was allowed and the District Magistrate, under the supervision of the Divisional Commissioner, was directed to shift the graves and erect a boundary wall before the next Moharram festival.

Issues considered

Whether the proposed shifting of two graves infringes the fundamental religious rights of the Sunni community under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
Whether the court has jurisdiction to order the relocation of graves in the interest of public order.
Whether the right not to disturb an interred corpse is absolute or can be overridden by public order considerations under CrPC s.176(3).
Whether the proposed action is "irre‑religious" or destructive of fundamental rights.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 144, s. 176(3)
Constitution of Indias. Article 25, s. Article 26

Subjects

Fundamental rightsReligious freedomPublic orderGrave exhumationSectarian conflictInjunctionSupreme Court of IndiaConstitutional law

Judgment

64

GULAM ABBAS AND OTHERS
A ,
v.

STATE OF U.P. AND OTHJ:lRS

B September 23, 1983 .·~

[V. D. TUlZAPURKAR, D. A. DESAI AND A. P. SEN, JJ.]

ConstitUtlon of India-Arts. 25 an'd 26-Scope of-Exercise of reliziou1
rights is subject to maintenance of public order..:....Shifting of graves for the purpose
c ,of m,aintaining public order is hot irreligious or destructive ofllf..ndamental rights.

While deciding a writ petition relating to the dispute regarding perfor-
mance of religious rights, practices· and observances by members of Shia sect
on a plot of land in a mohalta, the Court permanently restrained the Sunni
commtinity of that rriohalla by an injunction from interfering with lhe exercise
D of such rights of Shia community. However, the Court found that in an earlier
litigation the Sunni community had been given the IibCrty to read Fathia over
the grave cff Maulana Hakim_ Badruddin only found to 'be existing in the plot
and that the other two graves had come up contrary to the Court's injunctioi:J. ·
in the earlier litigation. Notwithstanding the above decision the members of
Shia community apprehended breach of.peace and disturbance of public order
and the Court had to give directions on each occasion with a view to ensure
.E that all the ciremonies went off smoothly. The Court, with a view to find
some permanent solution to this pere'nnial conflict between the two sect~
appointed a committee to go into the question, inter alia, whether the tw~
other graves now found in that plot could be shifted to some other convenient
place. The Chairm8n of the Committee opined that 'the suggestion to shift
the two graves located on the northern side of the plot to. the south of the
grave of Mau!ana 1-Iakim Badruddin was quite feasible as there was sufficient
space in the suggested area and that such shifting of the two graveS will totally
separate the places of worship of Shias and Sunnis. The petitioners (Shias)
filed the present petition for issuance of directions to implement the above
suggestion.

AJ lowing the petition,
G
HELD : The suggestion to shift the two graves cannOt be regarded as
irreligious or destructive of any fundamental rights of the Sunni!. [69G; 71E]

Articles 25 and 26 qf the Constitution undoubtedly guarantee (a) to all
H persons freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation
of religion and (b) to every religious denomination or·any section thereof
freedbm to manage it&i own a_ffairs in matters of religion but both these funda-
mental ri~bts have'been expressir rna<;le "subJect to ~uQitc orQer. ~orality a~p
,

.GULAM ABBAS v. U.j'. STATE (Tulzapu~kar, J.) 65

health". ThC impugried suggestion was mooted by the Court and has now
been found to be feasible by the -Chairman of .the 'Committee in the larger A
interest of the society for the purpose of maintaining public order o~ every
occasion oftne performance 'of thc_ir religious cere\nonies and fu~ctions by
members of both the sects., Over several years in the' past experience has
shown that such performance of their religious ceremonies and functions was
and has been invariably accompanied by ugly incidents of violence, damage or
\. destruction to ]jfe and property.putting public order in great jeopardy or that,
the perforn1allce by members of both the sects was required to be' Prohibited B
by orders under s. J.14 Cr. P.C. The. latter course benefits neither 3.nd obvj-
ouS1y mem~ers Of neither community could be permitted to' exercise their
fundmental rights under· Arts. 25 and 26 so as to put public order in
jeopardy. [69 H, 70 A-DJ

The religious rigllts of every person and every religious denomination
1 are subject to "public order", the maintenance whereof is paramount in the c
larger interest of the soci2ty. The ecclesiastical edict or right not to disturb
an interred corpse is not absolute as '!"ill be clear from' sec. 176(3) of Criminal
Procedure Code which permits its exhumation for the purpose of crime detec-
tion and this provision is" applicable to all irrespective of .. the personal law
governing.the dead .. The edict celarJy implies that it may become necessary
to.shift graves in certain situations and exigencies of public order would
surely provide -the requisite situation,' especially as the funda_mental rights
D
under Articles 25 and 26 expresslY made subject to public order. (71 B-D]
\
I The impugned suggestion merely seeks to shift those two graves from their

l'
present location to the southern side of the grave of Moulana Hakim Badruddin
and if taken in proper spirit it would in a sense amount to respecting the senti·•
ments of the Sunni Muslims, for, after placing them to the- south of t~e grave E
of Maulana Hakim Baddruddin, the Chaddar functions and· .recitation of
. Fathia could be undertaken by them at all the three graves instead of only at
. the grave of Maulana Hakim Badruddin. [70 F-H]

The n;iain decision reridered liy this Court arid the directions issued by
it have to bei implemented and removal of any impediment or obstruction ln
·-+
that behalf cannot be said to be beyond the• powers or jurisdiction of this F''
Court and since the acc~ptance and implement3.tion of the impugned sugges-
tion of the Chairman of the committee would facilitate the carrying out of the
main judgment of this Court the issuance of directions. sought by the petitioners
would obviously fall within the scope of the present proceedings. (71 F-G]

CIVIL APPELLATE JuRIDICTION : Civil Misc. Petition No. 4939 G
of 1983.
(Appln. for directions)
IN
H
W{it Petition No. 4675of1978.

- (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
66 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984) 1 s.c.R.

A.K. 'sen, Mrs. Urmi/a Kapoor and Hashan Imam for the
A AppJfoant.

F.S. Nariman, M. Qamaruddin, Alta/ Ahmed and Rizwan Hafiez
for the Opposite side.

B The Order of the C<Jurt was delivered by

TuLZAPURKAR, I. This Miscellaneous Petition for directions
is an off-shooi of this Court's decision in the main Writ Petition
"' .
No. 4675 of 1978, referred on November 3, 1981, in a dispute inter se
between the members of the Shia and Sunni sects of Muslims of
c Varanasi, pertaining to the performance of religious rites, practices
and observances by members of Shia sect on certain plots and
properties situated in Mahalia Doshipura, Varanasi.. The final
result itl that matter was expressed by this Court in the.se terms :

D "In the result we held that the petitioner~ and
through them the Shia commpnity of Mohalla Doshipura,
Varanasi, have established their religious rites, practices
'
ob>ervances, ceremonies and functions minus the recita-
tion and utterance of 'J:abarra (detailed in the writ
petition) over the plots and structures in question and
E respondent 5 and 6 and the Sunni community of Mahalia
Doshipura are permanently restrained by an injuction
from interfering with the exercise of said rights in any
manner [by the petitioners or members of Shia com-
munity and respondents 1 to 4, particularly the executive
magistracy Varanasi is directed, if action under s. 144
F
Cr, P.C. is required to be taken, to issue their orders
under the said provision'having regard to the principles
and the guidelines indicated in that behalf in this
judgment."

G
So far as the members ,of the Sunni community are concerned, in
view of the ultimate decisions rendered in two earlier suits (Suit No.
424 of 1931 and Suit No. 232 of 1934) this Court found that all the
rights which the .Sunnis had claimed in those representative litiga-
n tions sto9d finally negatived except for one religious practice for
which some liberty. was reserved to them. To recapitulate the
precise liberty Jeserved to them, it needs to be stated thiit in Suit
No. 424 of 1931 there was prayer for actual removal of graves, if
GULAM ABBAS v. U.P. STATE (Tulzapurkar, J.) 67

any, found on plot No. 602/1133, that the evidence clearly showed
·that there was only old grave of Maulana Hakim Badruddin situated f A
on the southern side of the said plot existing since 1307 Hazri and i
it was with regard to this grave that the Court had observed that it \
would be a bit improper that the soul of th~ dead be stirred and '
the defendents be ordered to remove the same and they (Sunni
Muslims) were given liberty to read Fathia over that grave.but what
B
is significant is that the Court issued permanent injunction restrain·
ing the defendants and through them the Muslims of Varannsi (in
•'
.< fact the Sunni Muslims) from using the plot in future as burial
ground. Even the liberty to read Fathia · o_ver grave of Maulana
Hakim Badruddin was to be exercised with due _regard to the rights
of the Maharaja. In other words, excepting this liberty to read c
Fathia over the grave of Maulana ·Hakim Badruddin the Sunni
Muslims did not have ·any other rights over the plot in question.
Allother rights in regard to performance of religious rites,. practices
and observances over .the other plots of structures thereon were
n,egatived in Suit No. 232 of 1934. It is obvious that their rights
cannot be enlarged or reduced in tnese proceedings. However, as D
regards the mosque standing on plot No. 246 is concerned this Court
clarified the position that it l)elonged to both the communities and
members of both were entitled to perform their worship by offering
prayer and namaz therein.
E

- Notwithstanding the aforesaid clear .and categorical decision
of this Court it appears that during the two Moharram festivals that
were to be celebrated in December 1981 ~nd October 1982, grave
apprehensions of breach of peace and break-down of publie order
were entertained by members of the Shia community and on each F
occasion directions were required to be given by this Court with a 1
view to ensure that all the ceremonies at the festivals went off
smoothly and peacefully and notwithstanding the directions issued
+ by this Court on the occasion of the 1981 festival some ugly incidents
of violence, stone-throwing, hurling of acid' bulbs1bottles, etc. did
occur in re8pect whereof contempt proceedings· were required to be. G
taken and criminal cases are pending. It may also be. stated that
on the occasion . of Barawafat ceremony which was desired to be
• performed by the Shias on 9.1.1982, the Sunnis also wanted to have
their Chaddar function and reading of Fathia on the grave and,
H
. therefore, this Court with a view to avoid any possible breach of
peace had to direct that only Shias would be allowed to perform
their ceremonies and the Sunnis were restrained from performing
,.

. '

68 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1984] l S.C.R.

Chaddar ceremony and reading of Fathia at the gravas on 9.1.1982
A· and it was· made clear that this arrangement, was without prejudice
to the contention of Sunnis with regard to their' above function
which would be ·decided later on. On the occasion of 1982
Moharram festival this Court was required to pass an order on 4th
October, 1982 that Chaddar function and reading of Fathia at the .i
B graves wilt not be permitted to be done or performed by the Sunnis \
on those dates on which the·Shias were going to have their functions
with a view to avoid clash between the two communities; by way
of further clarification this Court on November 16, 1982, gave a
further direction that the grave of Maulana ffakim Badruddin on
plot No. 6-02/1133 abutting on the road would be the venue for the
c Sunnis to perform on that grave the Chaddar function and reading ·
of Fathia between·stated hours (8 a.Iil. to 1 p.m.) on 19th, 20th and
21st November, 1982 and that the Sunnis will have access to that
grave only from the public road and the District Magistrate was
directed to cordon off the area and make necessary security arrange-
ments during those functions on·the aforesaid dates and time at the
D cost of Sunnis. We are referring to these events that have trans-
pired since after the rendering of our main decision in Writ Petition
No. 4675 of 1978 because they clearly suggest that some permanent
solution of this perennial conflict between the two sects over the
performance·· of.!heir religious cerem0nies .and functions is desirable
E so that their religious ceremonies and functions could be performed
in .;future without any violence, breach of peace. and disturbance of
public order. ·

With the aforesaid end in view by our order dated 4th October,·
F 1982 we appointed a Committee of seven persons consisting ·of three
nominees of the · Sbias, three no.minees of the Snnuies under the
· Chairmanship of the Divisional Commissioner of Varanasi (present
incumbent Shri S. K. Mukherjee) for going into and submitting its
report to us on two questions :

G "(i) Whether the two graves on plot No. 602/1133 could
' be shifted 'to some other conv~nient pla~e; and

(ii) If that is not possible whether· the two graves could .
be cordoned off by a wall of Suflj.cient height with
H an independent outlet (for entry and exit) ?

It appears that the Committee held two meetings to deliberate on
the two . issues and the representatives of both the communities
GULAM: ALDAS v. u.P. STA'rn.(Tulzapurkar, !.) 69
expressed their views ~d after considering all the pros and cons·
the Chairman has submitted a report dated 9.12.1982 to this Court. ·A
The report states that .Sunnis vehemently opposed the idea of shifting
of any grave from its present 'Site and even with regard to the pro-
J?Osal of the cordoning off the two graves by a wall they ·were not
agreeable. 'The Chairman has, however, after unde,rtaking a spot
inspection of plot No. 602/ 1133 and the adjoini\lg plots, opined B
that the suggestion to shift the two graves located on the northern

• side/of plot No. 602/1133 to the south of the grave of Maulana
Hakim Badruddin (situated in ·!lie same plot) is quite feasible as
there is sufficient space in the sµggested area and that such sh.ifting
of the two graves will totally separate the places of worship of Shias
and Sunnies. C.M.P. No. 4939 of 1983 has been filed by the peti- C
tioners (Shias) for issuance of directions to implement the suggestion
m1de by the Chairman of the Committee.

The Sunnis have raised two objections to the acceptance of
the suggestion of the Chairman, namely, (a) the suggestion has not D
only . hurt the 'sentiments of the. majority community of. Sunni
Muslims but is destructive of their fuudamental rights and fraught
with dangerous consequences and (b) the suggestion in any event is
. outside the jurisdiction of the Court and the scope of the proceed-
ings before it. In our view, there is no substance in either of the
objec!ions. E

-· At the out-set 1t needs to be clarified that the question whether
the two graves ;n plot No. 602/1133 could be shifted to some..other
convenient place was mooted by this Court not with a view to hurt
the sentiments of Sunni Muslims, who constitute a majority com-
munity in Mohalla Doshipura, Varanasi, but purely for the purpose
of finding out some permanent solution to this perennial conflict ,
between the two communities and to ensure smooth and peace!ul
performance of their religious ceremonies and functions in future
in' an. atmosphere of cordiality and amity between them and a·_
Cominittee was appointed to ascertain feasibility of the proposal. G
Further, the proposal has now beeri found to be feasible by the
Chairman of the Committee. and the same cannot be regarded as
destructive of any fundamental rights of the Sunnis as .contended.
-· Articles 25 and 26 . of the Constitution, on which strong reliance
H
was placed by counsel for the contesting respondents representing
the Sunni community in that behalf, undoubtedly guarantee (a) to
, all person; freedom of conscien,ce and free profession, practice and
'
7o SUPREME COURT REPORTS ii 984] l S.C.R.
propagation of religion and (b) to every religious deomination or
A any section thereof freedom to manage its' own affairs in matters of
religion but both these fundamental rights have been expre_ssly made
"subject to public order. morality and health". In other words,
the exercise of these fundamental rights is not absolute but must
yield or give way to maintenance of public order and the"impugned
B' feasible by was
suggestion mooted by the Court and has now been found to be
the Chairman of the Committee in the larger interest of
the socfoty for the purpose of maintaining public ord'er on every
occasion of the performance of their religious ceremonies and func·
tion by members of both the sects. Over several years in the past
experience'has shown that such performance of their religious cere-
c monies and functions was and has been invariably accomp~nied by
ugly incidents of. violence, damage or destruction to life and ·property
putting public order in great jeopardy or t,he performance by members
-of both the sects was required to be ·prohibited by order under
s. 144 C'r. P.C. The latter course benefits neither and obviously
members of neitJi.er community could be permitted to exercise their
.,
D fundmental rights under Arts. 25 and 26 so as to put· public order
in jeopardy and as such ·there is no question or the. impugned
suggestion being destructive of any fundamental rights of the Sunnis. ·
If tbe Court finds the implementation of the suggestion to be emi-
nently fit in.the interest of maintenanc'e ·of public order consent of
E either party would be. immaterial. Moreover, in the instant case,
admittedly only one old grave of Maulana Hakim Badruddin was
found io be existing in plot No. 602/Jl33 since 1307 Hazri when
Suit No. 424 of 1931 came to be decided and obviously the two
graves in question have come up ort the nortl;iern side of the same
plot in breach and defiance of the Court's order, and surely the·
F I Sunni Muslims cannot c1aim any right to retain them on the plot,
· much less' a right to perform Chaddar function or recitation, of
-
Fatia over those graves. However, the impugned suggestion merely
seeks to shift those two graves from their present location to the .
Southern side of the grave of Maulana Hakim Badruddin and if
G taken in proper spirit it would in a sense amount to re·specting the
sentiments of the Sunni Muslims, for, after placing them to /he
grave of Maulana Hakim Badruddin, the Chaddar functions and ·
recitation of Fathia could be undertaken by them atall the three
graves instead of only at the grave of Maulana Hakim Badruddin. .,
.,
Counsel for the Sunnis relied upon five· 'Futwas' issued by.
their .religious heads (Head Muftis and Sha,hi Imams) from Delhi,
\
GlJLAM AWAS v. U.P. STATE (Tulzapurkar, J,j 1J.

' Banaras and Patna stating the position under Sheriat Law. Tjie
common theme in all these' Futwas is that under Sheriat Law
respecting of graves is the religious obligation of every Muslim, that
shifting of.dead bodies after digging old graves in which they· are
lying buried is not permissible and to do so would amount to inter-
ference with their religious rights. True, this position under Sheriat
A

law cannot be doubted but as explained earlier the religious rights
of every person and every religious denomination are subject to
B
"public order", the maintenance whereof is param'!ount in the larger
interest of the society. For instance, the eclesiastical edict or right
not to disturb an interred corpse is not absolute as will be clear from
the sec. 176 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code which permits its
exhumation for .the purpose of crime detection and this provision is c
applicable to all jrrespective of the personal law governing the dead.
In fact, quoting a Hadit, one of the Fatwas relied upon by the
contesting respondents states "unnecessary shifting of graves is also
not permissible". The edict clearly implies that it may become
necessary to shift graves in certain situations and exigencies of public
order would surely provide the requisite situation, especially as, the
D
fundamental rights under Articles 25 and 26 are expressly made
subject to public order. In the circumstances in directing the,shifting
. of two graves in question for the purpose of maintaining public
order which would be in the larger interest of the society, we do not
think that we are doing anything irreligious. In the circumstances E

-
the first objection is overruled. '

As regards the second objection, we fail to appreciate as to
how the impugned suggestion of the Chairman of the Committe is
beyohd the powers of this Court or outside its jurisdiction or 'outside F
----f the scope of the proceedings.before us. The main decision rendered
by this Court an'd the directions issued by it have to be implemented
removal of any impediment or obstruction in that behalf cannot be
said to be beyond the powers or jurisdiction of this Court and since
the acceptance and implementation of the suggestion of the Chairman
of the committee would facilitate the cafrying out of the main judg·
ment of this Court the issuance 'of directions sought by the petitioners
would obviously fall within the scope of the present proceedings.
.. C.M.P. has, therefore, to be allowec:j .
). B
· A plan marked Annexure 'A' hereto and made a part of this
order clearly indicates the bO"undary wall that has to be constructed
surrounding some of the plots over which the Shias have t.o perform
72 SUPREME COURT REPORfS tl984) 1 S.C.R •.

their functions, ceremonies, rites, practices and observance~ as
also the exact location of the spots where the two graves in question
a~e to be installed after shifting them from iheir present site, being
two spots to the south of the old grave of Maulana Hakim Badruddin \
with exact diamensions of open spaces surrounaing the three graves -
that are required to be maintained and cordoned off by a wall of 12.
ft. in height On the' shifting of the two graves in question to the
B south of the Maulana Hakim Badruddin's give the three graves
.would be abutting the_ road on west as indicated in the plan. ·We
direct that the aforesaid operation of constructing the boundry
. wall and shifting the two graves in question and installing them
at the spots indicated in the plan should be carried out by , the
c . District Magistrate of Varanasi under the direction and supervision
of the Divisional Commissiner; Varanasi and in the presenct; of the
representatives of the Shia and Sunni communities (being the
j members of the Committee) and the operation should be completed·
.•
in all solemnity and with due regard to ritual~, if any, without any
' delay and preferably before the advent of Moharram festival of.1983.
D Co-operation of members of the communities should be secured by
the Divisional C.ommissioner and i~ case any one .Or the sects or irs
meinbers refuse to co-operate, the members of that sect are restrained
from causing any obstructio11. to the afor'esaid operation. ·The
petitioners aijd members of Shia community have undertaken to bear
E and pay the entire cost of aforesaid operation'.

It is clarified that the order and· directions hereby given are
· intended to bind the parties hereto anil all members of Shia and
Sunni Muslims of Varanasi but will not affect the rights, if any of
third parties such as tile Maharaja of his heirs of legal representatives
F over the plots in question. ·
,
H.S.K. Petition allowed.
,