Supreme Court of India
RAMESH BAGHELversusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH & OTHERS
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 109
- Decided
- 27 January 2025
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- B V NAGARATHNA
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the appellant is entitled to conduct the funeral rites and bury his father on his private agricultural land in Chhindawada, with appropriate security, and directed the State to demarcate exclusive Christian graveyards throughout Chhattisgarh.
Summary
The appellant, a third‑generation Christian, sought to bury his deceased father, a pastor, in his native village of Chhindawada where his ancestors had been interred. Villagers objected, the Gram Panchayat refused, and the High Court dismissed his writ petition, directing burial at a designated Christian cemetery in Karkapal, 20‑25 km away. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the right to last rites under Articles 21 and 25 includes the right to choose the burial site, and whether the Panchayat’s refusal violated Articles 14 and 15. A majority of the Court held that the appellant may be permitted to bury his father on his private agricultural land in Chhindawada, with police protection, and ordered the State to demarcate exclusive Christian graveyards across the state. A dissenting opinion directed burial at the Karkapal Christian burial ground. The High Court order was set aside and the appeal disposed with the directions above.
Issues considered
- The extent of the right to conduct last rites under Articles 21 and 25, specifically whether it includes the choice of burial location.
- Whether the Gram Panchayat's refusal to allow burial in the village graveyard violates Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.
- Whether the State can lawfully direct burial at a designated Christian burial ground away from the appellant's native village.
- The correctness of the High Court's dismissal of the writ petition.
- The duty of the State to demarcate exclusive Christian burial sites under the Panchayat Raj Act and Rules.
Legislation cited
- Chhattisgarh Gram Panchayat (Regulating Places for Disposal of Dead Bodies, Carcasses and other Offensive Matter) Rules, 1999s. Rule 3, s. Rule 4, s. Rule 5, s. Rule 8
- Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993s. Sec.49(12), s. Sec.95
- Constitution of Indias. Art.14, s. Art.142, s. Art.15, s. Art.21, s. Art.25
Subjects
Decent burialArticle 142ChristianArticles 14 and 15Last rites and ceremoniesPlace of burialRight to choose place of ceremonyGraveyardMahra caste
Judgment
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 961 : 2025 INSC 109
Ramesh Baghel
v.
State of Chhattisgarh & Others
(Civil Appeal No. 1235 of 2025)
27 January 2025
[B.V. Nagarathna* and Satish Chandra Sharma,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
A plea of a Christian man to accord his father a decent burial in
his own native village.
Headnotes†
Constitution of India – Arts.14 and 15 – Chhattisgarh Panchayat
Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 – Chhattisgarh Gram Panchayat
(Regulating Places for Disposal of Dead Bodies, Carcasses
and other Offensive Matter) Rules, 1999 – Appellant herein is a
christian and belongs to the New Apostolic Church – His family
and ancestors were native residents of village Chhindwada,
Chhattisgarh for generations and belonged to the Mahra caste
or community – The appellant’s father, a pastor, passed away
on 07.01.2025 – Appellant wished to accord his father a decent
burial in his own native village – However, the burial was
objected by the fellow villagers – Appellant received no aid
from the State machinery – Appellant filed writ petition before
the High Court – By the impugned order dated 09.01.2025, the
High Court disposed of the writ petition by refusing to grant
relief as prayed for the appellant:
Held: [Per Nagarathna, J.] (i) The appellant permitted to conduct
the funeral rites of his father in his private agricultural land at village
Chhindwada at the earliest; (ii) However, the appellant shall not
take any advantage, legally or otherwise, for having been permitted
to bury his father in his private land; (iii) Since the death of the
appellant’s father has given rise to the unsavoury controversy
regarding the place of burial, respondent Nos.3 to 9 directed to
provide adequate security and protection to the appellant and
his family to carry out the funeral rites of his father at his private
* Author
962 [2025] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
agricultural land at village Chhindwada at the earliest; (iv) The
implementation of the aforesaid directions to be expedited; (v) The
respondent-State and its local authorities directed to demarcate
exclusive sites as grave yards for burial of Christians throughout
the State in accordance with law; (vi) Although, by consensus,
this Court has issued certain directions as per the Order of the
Court, nevertheless, direction five above shall be complied with
by the respondent-State and its authorities dehors the direction
issued under Article 142 of the Constitution. [Para 1] [Per Satish
Chandra Sharma, J.(dissenting)] (a) The Appellant and his
family be provided with an appropriate site within the Designated
Christian Burial Ground situated at village Karkapal for the burial
of the Deceased's remains; (b) The Respondent State is directed
to ensure that the Appellant and his family are provided with all
ancillary logistical support for the purpose of transferring the
remains of the Deceased from the mortuary at the Medical College
situated at Jagdalpur to Designated Christian Burial Ground
situated at village Karkapal; (c) The Respondent State to grant
the Appellant and his family members adequate police protection
which shall be reviewed by the concerned authorities after a period
of 7 (seven) days; (d) The Respondent State to take adequate
measures to ensure no public order incident takes place at either
village Karkapal or village Chindwada; and (e) The Respondent
State is directed to ensure that the burial of the remains of the
Deceased takes place at the earliest – The Appellant and his
family members are directed to cooperate with the authorities
of the Respondent State who shall handle the situation with the
sensitivity it deserves. [Para 2]
Constitution of India – Art.142 – Directions issued – Appellant,
a Christian wished to accord his father (pastor) a decent burial
in his own native village – However, the burial was objected
by the fellow villagers:
Held: (Per Court) 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, the following directions in exercise of powers under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India: (i) The appellant to conduct
the funeral rites and bury his deceased father at the burial ground
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 963
Ramesh Baghel v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others
at village Karkapal; (ii) The respondent-State and its local authorities
to 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 to
be accorded in this regard; (iv) The respondent-State and its
authorities to ensure that the burial of the deceased father shall
take place at the earliest. [Para 3]
Constitution of India – Arts.14 and 15 – Violation of duty to
ensure burial – Betrayal of the sublime principles of secularism:
Held: [Per Nagarathna, J.] The village Panchayat has abdicated
its duty to ensure burial of appellant’s father within a period of
24 hours of his death – The Panchayat has been taking sides –
The affidavit of the ASP, Bastar, stated that any person who has
forsworn the tradition of the community or has converted into a
Christian is not allowed to be buried at the village graveyard – This
declaration by the respondents is unfortunate – It is violation of
Article 14 and Article 15(1) of the Constitution of India which speak
of equality before the law and the equal protection of the laws as
well as places a strict prohibition of discrimination on the ground
of religion, respectively – Attitude on the part of local authorities, at
the village level or higher level, indicates a betrayal of the sublime
principles of secularism. [Paras 22.10, 22.11]
Constitution of India – Arts.21 and 25 – Last rights and
ceremonies – Right to choose place for ceremony:
Held: [Per Satish Chandra Sharma, J.] The fact that procedures
pertaining to last rites; and ceremonies involved, from a part
of the right(s) protected under Part III of the Constitution of
India – However, to claim that such right(s) would encompass
the unqualified right to choose the “place” of such ceremony
(including burial) would prima facie appear to stretch constitutional
limits beyond what was envisaged – It is well settled that right(s)
protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India are subject
to “procedure established by law” which is required to be just,
fair and reasonable – Furthermore, the right freely to profess,
practice and propagate religion under Article 25, is ex facie
subject to “public order”; and the Sub-Clause 2 of Article 25
enables the State to frame provisions regulating certain activities
964 [2025] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
associated with religious practices – Thus, to claim an absolute
or unqualified right in respect of the exact “place” of burial of a
person under Article 21 and Article 25, prima facie, appears to
be circumspect – Nonetheless, a person / community cannot
altogether be denied a place to carry out last rites including inter
alia burials – On the contrary, the State has a duty to provide
members of all religious communities with identified places to
carry out last rites within the confines and limits of reason and
rationality. [Para 18]
Case Law Cited
Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India [2023] 14 SCR 266 :
(2023) 8 SCC 402; Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala [1986] 3
SCR 518 : (1986) 3 SCC 615 – referred to.
List of Acts
Constitution of India; Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993;
Chhattisgarh Gram Panchayat (Regulating Places for Disposal of
Dead Bodies, Carcasses and other Offensive Matter) Rules, 1999.
List of Keywords
Decent Burial; Article 142 of Constitution; Christian; Articles 14
and 15 of Constitution; Last rites and Ceremonies; Place of burial;
Right to choose place of Ceremony; Graveyard; Mahra Caste.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1235 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.01.2025 of the High Court
of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in WPC No. 152 of 2025
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv., Umesh Kumar, Satya Mitra
Advs. for the Respondents:
Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, Praffull Bharat, Advocate General,
Avdhesh Singh, A.A.G., K M Nataraj, Vinay Navre, Sr. Advs., Mrs.
Prerna Dhall, Ms. Karishma Rajput, Gopinath Mr, Prashant Singh,
Kaustubh Shukla, Rohit Sharma, Ms. Pushpanjali Singh.
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 965
Ramesh Baghel v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Nagarathna, J.
Leave granted.
2. It is said that death is a great leveller. It is necessary for us to remind
ourselves time and again about this solemn truth. But the instant
case demonstrates that the death of a resident of a village can give
rise to divisiveness thereby calling upon the Apex Court to rule on
his site of burial.
3. Appellant herein is a bereaved son and an aggrieved litigant. A third
generation Christian, the appellant belongs to the New Apostolic
Church. His family and ancestors have been native residents of
village Chhindwada, Tehsil Darbha, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh for
generations and belong to the Mahra caste or community. A native
resident of the same village Chhindwada, the appellant’s father, a
man of faith and a pastor since 1986-87, passed away on January
7th, 2025 after suffering from prolonged illness and old age. In his
living years, the appellant’s father led and participated in prayers
organized in the village church and other places as well.
4. Unfortunately, the appellant’s duty as a progeny and wish to accord
a decent burial to his father in his own native village was met with
abrupt hurdles as his fellow villagers objected and threatened the
appellant’s family against the burial of the appellant’s deceased father
within the village. This objection to burial within the village confines
also extended to restraining the appellant from laying to rest his
father’s mortal remains in their privately owned agricultural land. It
is the case of the appellant that to his utter dismay even the local
police forcefully exhorted the appellant’s family to take the body out of
the village. There was no help from the local Gram Panchayat also.
Compelled by circumstances and on the advice of fellow relatives,
the family of the appellant proceeded to take his father’s body to
the mortuary of District Hospital and Medical College, Jagdalpur.
5. Aggrieved by these circumstances, the appellant, on 07.01.2025,
submitted representations to the SHO, Police Station Darbha,
District Bastar, Chhattisgarh and the SDO of Tokapal, District Bastar
Chhattisgarh detailing his predicament and seeking police protection
966 [2025] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
and from the State authorities for ensuring peaceful burial and last
rites in the Christian burial area of village Chhindwada.
6. Having received no aid from the State machinery, the appellant
approached the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in W.P.(C)
No.125 of 2024 seeking a direction to the State of Chhattisgarh to
allow the appellant to bury his father at the same site where his
ancestors were buried in the village of Chhindwada and also sought
police protection to that end.
7. It is pertinent to note that during the pendency of the writ petition, the
‘Barahpal Chindwara Gram Panchayat No. 1, 2, 3’ issued a certificate
wherein it was certified that there existed no graveyard of Christian
community at any place within the limits of the Gram Panchayat.
8. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 09.01.2025 came to be passed
by the High Court disposing of the writ petition by refusing to grant
relief as prayed for the appellant.
9. It was submitted by the appellant before the High Court, as is before
this Court, that village Chhindwada has a graveyard and the Gram
Panchayat has by an oral sanction permitted burial of dead bodies.
Separate graveyards exist for Tribals and other communities. It was
contended that there is a separate area earmarked for the burial/
cremation of persons belonging to the Christian community within
the graveyard of Mahra Caste or community. It was also argued
that appellant’s ancestors and relatives, as detailed hereunder,
have throughout the decades been buried in the area demarcated
for Christians. For instance,
i. Appellant’s grandfather died in the year 2007 and
was buried in the graveyard of the village meant for
Christians.
ii. Two distant relatives of the appellant, namely,
Sadashiv Singh and Bhagirathi, both residents of the
same village were buried in the very same graveyard
in March 2013 after they suffered with their lives at
the hands of Naxalites.
iii. Appellant’s aunt passed away in 2015 and was buried
in the same graveyard of the village Chhindwada.
10. Therefore, the prayer of the appellant was simply that Christian
members of his family i.e. appellant’s father be allowed to be buried
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 967
Ramesh Baghel v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others
in the same manner and at the same place as the Christian members
of his family i.e. appellant’s grandfather and aunt had been. It must
be noted that nothing has been brought before this Court to reveal
that there was similar opposition to performing the funeral rites of
appellant’s grandfather and aunt in the native village.
11. Per contra, the State relied on the certificate issued by the Gram
Panchayat to contend that no burial ground of the Christian community
exists within its confines. It was alternatively argued that no one
can have any quarrel with funeral rites performed as per original
custom if the appellant were to be permitted to bury his father in
village Karkapal, situated at a distance of 20-25 kms (or more)
from the native village, where a separate burial ground for Christian
community is available.
12. It was this submission that found favour with the High Court as it
observed that “admittedly” there exists no separate burial ground/
graveyard for the members of the Christian community in the
native village whereas it does in the nearby village. The High Court
reasoned that it would not be proper to direct burial of appellant’s
father’s mortal remains in his own native village to avert ‘unrest and
disharmony in the public at large’. Accordingly, the writ petition was
disposed. Therefore, the appellant was left worse off in his own writ
petition as beyond rejecting his main as well as alternative prayers
the High Court also observed that the deceased could be buried in
village Karkapal, which is 20-25 kms far from village Chhindwada.
Hence, the appeal before this Court.
13. Counter-affidavits on behalf of the respondent-State of Chhattisgarh
have been filed which we shall advert to.
14. The first affidavit is dated 19.01.2025 sworn to by the Additional
Superintendent of Police (“ASP”), District Bastar, Chhattisgarh stating
that he is well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the
case borne out of the record and on the basis of the knowledge
gathered from the record he has stated that the appellant is a member
of the Christian community belonging to the New Apostolic Church.
The appellant, his family and ancestors have been residing in the
village Chhindwada since time immemorial and they have agricultural
land in the said village. The appellant and his family belong to the
Mahra Caste and the father of the appellant – the deceased - was
a pastor and had been involved in participating in the prayers of the
village Church and elsewhere too. That the village Chhindwada has
968 [2025] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
a total population of 6450 out of which 6000 people belong to tribal
community and rest i.e. 450 people belong to Mahra community. Out
of 450 people, 350 people belong to Hindu Mahra community and
the remaining 100 people belong to Christian community.
14.1 Further, in the village Chhindwada, there is a graveyard and the
Gram Panchayat has orally allocated space for burial/cremation
of the dead bodies. In this village graveyard, separate areas
have been earmarked for burial of tribals and for the burial/
cremation of persons belonging to Hindu religion; that the
appellant’s grandfather Lakeshwar Baghel died 28 years ago
and his last rites were carried out as per village rituals as he
was a Hindu; appellant’s aunt Shanti Baghel died eight years
ago and her burial was carried out as per Mahra community
rituals in the said village graveyard.
14.2 That the appellant’s father died on 07.01.2025 at 7.00 am
due to prolonged illness and the appellant wanted to bury
him in the area specified for Christians in the abovementioned
village graveyard. It is averred that “Hearing about this, some
villagers aggressively objected to this and they threatened
of dire consequences if the instant appellant and his family
buried the instant appellant’s father in this land”. It is averred
in paragraph ‘7(f)’ of the affidavit that “in the Gram Panchayat,
birth, marriage and death rituals are carried out as per the
tradition. Any person who has forsworn the tradition of the
community or has converted into a Christian is not allowed
to be buried at the village graveyard. It is also averred that
“there is no separate graveyard for Christian community in
Gram Barahpal, Chhindwada”. Furthermore, paragraph ‘7(g)’
avers that “According to the villagers, a Christian person
cannot be buried in their village be it at the village graveyard
or the instant Petitioner’s own private land”. That, inter alia,
the husband of the incumbent Sarpanch, Mangtu, has objected
to the burial in the instant case and as the villagers turned
violent, the appellant’s family made a report to the Police and
30/35 police personnel reached the village. Presently, the dead
body has been kept in the mortuary in the District Hospital
and Medical College, Jagdalpur. The appellant then made an
application seeking protection and help from the respondent-
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 969
Ramesh Baghel v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others
authorities to ensure the peaceful and honourable burial of
his father in the Christian burial area of the village before the
Chhindwada Police Station and also made similar applications
to the Collector, Bastar; SDM, Tokapal; Inspector General of
Police, Bastar; Superintendent of Police, Bastar and Police
Station Darbha also.
14.3 That, when information was received from Dundul Nag and
District Sarpanch that a pastor of Mendabhata i.e. the appellant’s
father has died in his house due to illness, the police arrived
at his house. It is averred in paragraph 8(II) that “as per the
senior citizens, people belonging to tribal community and other
hindu community members, burial should be carried out as per
the Christian rituals in the graveyard of Karkapal, Jagdalpur
and, on the other hand, the Mahara Christian community
members and the family of the deceased wanted to carry out
the burial at Chhindwada as they have been residing there
for generations”. That there was a heated exchange between
the members of various communities. Later, it was decided to
file a petition before the High Court.
14.4 That in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 95
read with Section 49(12) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat
Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short “the Act of 1993”), the State
Government has made Chhattisgarh Gram Panchayat
(Regulating Places for Disposal of Dead Bodies, Carcasses and
other Offensive Matter) Rules, 1999 (for short “the 1999 Rules”).
That, Rule 3 mandates disposal of the corpse within twenty four
hours whereas Rule 4 casts a duty on the Gram Panchayat to
arrange for disposal of corpse, and Rule 5 provides for place
for disposal of corpse. According to this deponent, “there is
no separate graveyard for Christians at village Chhindwada
which contained the signatures of Sarpanch, Up-Sarpanch and
Panchas”; that, there is no objection if the appellant performs
the funeral rites of his deceased father in the nearby village
Karkapal, which is situated near village Chhindwada, where
there is a separate graveyard for the Christian community.
That, in the past few years, disputes have arisen between
the people belonging to Mahra Christian community and
tribal community owing to their religious beliefs. That, as a
result, every time a member of Mahra Christian community
970 [2025] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
dies, the police reach at the place of occurrence of death so
as to avoid any heated exchange between the parties and to
help them to find a solution or a common ground in case any
dispute arises between the parties. It is also averred in para
13 that if the respective communities are unable to find a
solution, “the governmental bodies usually suggest the Mahara
Christian community to use their respective private lands
as their burial ground and in case that fails, then the police
suggests the Christian community to carry burial ceremonies
at the government burial grounds situated at Karkapal which
is approximately 40-45 kms far from Chhindwada”. According
to the learned Solicitor General appearing for the State of
Chhattisgarh the distance to Karkapal should be read as
20-25 kms away from Chhindwada.
15. The aforesaid affidavit is followed by another affidavit dated
21.01.2025 wherein the ASP, District Bastar has averred that the
State of Chhattisgarh is essentially a tribal State and has its peculiar
socio-economic position. The tribals customarily do not resort to
cremation at the time of death but they bury their dead in a separate
designated place for burial. This is a “Hindu-tribal-burial site.” That,
there are some tribals who are converted Christians and they follow
Christianity as their religion. That in the village in question there
are only 100 converted Christians as against the total population of
6450. As a result, one burial ground is designated for three to four
villages depending upon the number of Christians in each village.
It is averred that the Rules specify and designate a particular
earmarked place for cremation or burial for Muslim/Hindu Tribals/
Other Hindus who bury the dead/Christians. That merely because
“… that in the past in few occasions, the Hindu tribals permitted
their burial grounds to be used for burial of two persons, cannot
be construed as waiver of fundamental rights by the Hindu Tribal
community since the fundamental rights can never be waived.” That,
“… a mere deviation in preserving the right of “practice” of religion
in two cases would not change the character of the burial ground
designated for Hindu Tribals whose religion requires burial rather
than cremation.” Reference is also made to Articles 21 and 25 of
the Constitution. In light of the above, the deponent has stated that
the State Government would provide an ambulance to carry the
body for being respectfully buried at a designated burial ground for
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 971
Ramesh Baghel v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others
Christians and/or State Government will ensure adequate security
as deemed necessary.
16. This affidavit is followed by another affidavit filed by the ASP, Bastar
on 22.1.2025. It is averred that there is a designated burial space
for Christians at village Karkapal comprised in Khasra No.9 /94
admeasuring 1.96 acres and that the community has also taken over
adjoining land making the designated land as 2.15 acres which is
sufficient to cater to the need of the Christian burials, considering
the population of Christians in nearby four villages. That there is a
demarcation report prepared in 2013 with respect to the aforesaid
burial ground showing the position of 2.15 acres in the panchnama
drawn on 30.01.2013 in the presence of the persons of the Christian
community. That Christians of all the four villages i.e. Chhindwada,
Munga, Tirathgarh and Darbha are using the said land for burying
the Christians of said four villages. Therefore, the appellant belonging
to Christian community has a designated burial place.
17. In response to these affidavits, the appellant has also filed two
additional affidavits. In the additional affidavit dated 21.01.2025, the
appellant has stated that the de facto situation on the ground level
has been to use the land in Khasra No.725/136 in village Chhindwada
as a graveyard and all communities have used the aforesaid land
as a graveyard which had to be formally recognised by the Gram
Panchayat and the Collector. In this regard, reliance is placed on a
hand-drawn map of the graveyard in Khasra No.725/136 prepared
by the local Patwari, as annexed to the additional affidavit. That,
earlier several Christians from Mahra Caste have been buried in the
village graveyard which has been earmarked partly for the Christians.
Photographs along with the coordinates indicating the latitude and
longitude of the graves and affidavits of the persons who have buried
the dead members of their families in the said graveyard have been
annexed to the additional affidavit.
18. In support of the said material, another additional affidavit dated
22.01.2025 has been filed to counter what has been stated in paragraph
8 of the counter affidavit of the State. It is stated that no Christian in
the neighbouring villages i.e. Darbha, Mamadpal and Karka has ever
buried their deceased in the village Karkapal. It is also stated that in
Chhindwada or the aforesaid surrounding villages, no Christian has
ever taken the body of their dead outside the village for burial.
972 [2025] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Submissions:
19. Learned senior counsel, Sri Gonsalves, appearing for the appellant
argued that the High Court has gravely erred by finding reason in
potential “unrest and disharmony” in declining relief to the appellant. It
is the appellant’s contention that unruly sentiments have transformed
appellant’s deceased father’s last rites into a contentious issue, where
none could possibly exist as the family has been burying their dead
at the same location for generations.
19.1 It was emphasized that in the native village of the appellant,
Chhindwada, there are separate graveyards for Tribals and
the Mahra Caste and within the graveyard for Mahra caste
there exists a separate area for burial/cremation of persons
belonging to Hindu religion and the Christian community.
Appellant has also submitted before this Court photographs
and co-ordinates of the graves of his aunt and grandfather,
in the area specified for Christians in the village graveyard.
19.2 Furthermore, it was submitted that the existence of oral
permission by the Gram Panchayat is confirmed by the
practice of burying Christians from the last few decades
including appellant’s grandfather and aunt being buried in
the area specified for Christians. Therefore, according to the
appellant, there indubitably is an established practice. In that
light, it was contended that all these decades the local Gram
Panchayat, on the basis of oral permission, had permitted
Christian burials in the village itself and the photographs of the
graves of appellant’s family members stand as a testimony to
the said fact. However, the High Court erred in insisting upon
written permission or relying upon the Certificate issued by
the Sarpanch submitted to the Court.
19.3 It was further submitted that this Court may direct the
respondents not to create any hindrance to the burial of
appellant’s father adjacent to the burials of his grandfather
and aunt. In alternative, it was submitted that permission may
be granted to the appellant herein to bury his father in his
private agricultural land which would in a way give a quietus
to the controversy.
20. Per contra, learned Solicitor General Sri Tushar Mehta led the
arguments for the respondents along with the learned Advocate
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 973
Ramesh Baghel v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others
General for the State as well as other counsel for the respondent-
authorities by contending that constitutional issues under Article 25
would arise in this case which could be argued at length by both
sides. However, having regard to the facts of the present case and
particularly the fact that the body of the appellant’s father is being
preserved at the mortuary of the District Hospital and Medical College
at Jagdalpur since 07.01.2025, as a resolution to the controversy
between the parties, the appellant could bury his father at the burial
ground at Karkapal which is about 20-25 kms from Chhindwada
village and the appellant would be given all support by the State
Government in that regard. In this regard, reliance was placed on
the subsequent two affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents.
20.1 Learned Solicitor General contended that the appellant is
prosecuting a cause which could be given a quietus by the
appellant being permitted to bury his father at Karkapal
graveyard and the matter could be thus concluded.
21. By way of reply, learned senior counsel submitted that if the appellant
desired to conduct the funeral rites of his deceased father at Karkapal
graveyard, which is now being suggested by the respondents, there
was no necessity for him to have made a grievance on the touchstone
of hostile discrimination by filing the writ petition before the High
Court. On the other hand, it is the case of the appellant that owing
to unnecessary objection and threats being raised and orchestrated
for conducting the funeral rites of his father in the village graveyard
he had made representations to the concerned Police and other
authorities for protection which have remained unanswered. In these
circumstances the appellant was constrained to approach the High
Court which has also declined to grant any relief to the appellant.
Hence, appellant is before this Court.
21.1 Learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted with
reference to his additional affidavit that in respect of Khasra
No.725/136, the Patwari of the Chhindwada village has
prepared a sketch indicating that an area of 1.050 ha. of the
total area of 17.607 ha. of the said khasra number is government
land which is “proposed for graveyard”. It is averred that this
area has been used for decades as a graveyard and a formal
declaration “is to be made to that effect”. The document at
Annexure ‘A-1’ of 2002-2003 clearly indicates that as there
974 [2025] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
has been no settlement survey of the village, therefore, the
map has been prepared by hand. This document is dated
04.05.2024 which is of an undisputed point of time. A list of
Christian deceased persons and the information about those
buried in public graveyard, as per Christian customs, in the
Gram Panchayat of Chhindwada is mentioned indicating that
there are 26 such persons who have been buried. Further,
Annexure A-3 is a hand-drawn sketch indicating that insofar
as the area allocated for the Mahra community is concerned,
there is a portion meant for Christian Mahra graveyard and
another adjacent portion meant for Hindu Mahra graveyard.
Also, there has been no objection as such for Christians to
bury their dead in the said area indicated as Christian Mahra
graveyard in all these decades. The affidavits of the Christian
family members whose relatives have been buried in the said
graveyard along with some photographs of the graves have
also been filed. According to learned senior counsel, these
affidavits indicate that the Mahra community members who
are Christians have buried their dead in the said area as
indicated in the sketch.
21.2 Learned senior counsel stressed on the fact that within the
Mahra community, there are persons following Hindu faith
while others follow the Christian faith and accordingly there is
a demarcation of space in the graveyard area meant for the
entire Mahra community.
21.3 The English translation of the affidavits are filed by the following
persons: (a) Jaldev Kumar, (b) Vijay Bais, (c) Bali Nag, (d)
Piluram Nag, (e) Samel Baghel, (f) Pila Ram, (g) Surendra,
(h) Smt. Poonam, (i) Padmini Nag, (j) Ichhawati Nag, (k) Jwala
Nag, (l) Rajesh Baghel, (m) Bhursu Kashyap, and (n) Rajkumar
Nag, which may be perused.
21.4 All the affidavits indicate the details of the members of their
families who died and were buried in the village graveyard from
the year 1986 onwards till February 2024. The photographs of
some of the graves have also been appended to the affidavits
including that of the graves of the aunt (Shanti Baghel) and
the grandfather (Lakeshwar Baghel) of the appellant.
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 975
Ramesh Baghel v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others
21.5 Learned senior counsel therefore submitted that unnecessary
objection is being raised for the burial of the appellant’s
father in the very same area which has been demarcated for
the burial of the members of Mahra community who follow
the Christian faith. He contended that the appellant may be
permitted to bury his father in the orally demarcated area just
as the other members of the family. According to learned senior
counsel, unnecessarily a controversy has been created with
regard to the burial of the appellant’s father. Consequently,
the appellant’s father who died on 07.01.2025 has not been
able to have a decent and dignified burial for over two weeks
and his body is lying in the mortuary of the District Hospital.
In the circumstances, he submitted that the objections raised
by the respondents may be overruled and the appellant may
be granted relief so that the dignity of his deceased father is
not jeopardised. Alternatively, it was submitted that appellant
may be permitted to bury his father in his private agricultural
land in Chhindwada village.
Analysis:
22. The pleadings and affidavits filed by the respective parties have
been considered. On a perusal of the affidavit of the respondent-
State dated 19.01.2025, it is inferred that there is no separate
graveyard sanctioned exclusively for the Christians in Gram
Barahpal, Chhindwada; that the Mahra community in Barahpal village,
Chhindwada comprises of both Hindus, to a large extent and the
Christians are lesser in number. That in the said Gram Panchayat,
birth, marriage and death rituals are carried out as per the religious
traditions to which the residents belong.
22.1 It is also noted that earlier, at least 20 persons belonging to
the Christian faith have been buried in the graveyard and the
Gram Panchayat of Barahpal, Chhindwada had always orally
permitted the members of the Christian community belonging
to the Mahra community to be buried in the demarcated space
in the village graveyard and the burials have taken place since
mid-1980s and as late as in February 2024.
22.2 But there is now hostility raised against the burial of the
appellant’s father in the very same area. When earlier the
976 [2025] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Gram Panchayat, Barahpal, Chhindwada had permitted burial
of the dead who were followers of the Christian faith, there
is no reason to disallow in the case of the appellant’s father.
The detailed affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents when
juxtaposed with the affidavits filed by the appellant would
indicate the following:
i. That in the area demarcated as a graveyard for the Mahra
community, there is an internal demarcation as (i) Hindu
Mahra graveyard; and, (ii) Christian Mahra graveyard. The
persons belonging to respective faiths are buried within
the area demarcated for the Mahra community all these
decades without there being any objection from any quarter.
ii. The demarcation may not be by a formal order passed by
the Panchayat but the allocation of the respective areas
within the area reserved for the Mahra community in the
graveyard is indicative of the fact that the Panchayat of
the Barahpal village Chhindwada has all along recognised
and permitted the burial of the dead, as per their faith,
in the demarcated areas of the graveyard meant for the
entire Mahra community.
iii. There has never been any objection to the burial of
several other persons belonging to the Mahra Community
following Christian faith in the said graveyard from any
of the residents of the village inasmuch as the additional
affidavit of the appellant indicates that all along persons
belonging to the Mahra community following the Christian
faith have buried their dead in the area demarcated for
the said community.
iv. The second additional affidavit of the appellant also
indicates that not one Christian in Chhindwada village has
used the graveyard in village Karkapal.
22.3 In view of the aforesaid circumstances and Rule 5 of the 1999
Rules, it is observed that it is the duty of the Gram Panchayat
to ensure that a dead person of the village is buried as early
as possible and within a period of 24 hours irrespective of
whatever faith he follows. But here is a case, where on the so-
called objection of certain residents of the village the appellant
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 977
Ramesh Baghel v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others
is contending that he is being denied burial of his father in
the village graveyard in the area demarcated for the Mahra
community following the Christian faith, which is adjacent to
the area orally demarcated for the Mahra community following
the Hindu faith. The relevant Rules are reproduced as under:
“3. Disposal of corpse within 24 hours.-
(1) When a person has died in any place within the
Gram Panchayat area, the occupier or owner
of such place shall, to the best of his ability,
arrange through the deceased person’s relatives
or otherwise for the corpse to be buried, burnt
or otherwise disposed of in accordance with the
custom of the deceased person’s religion within
twenty four hours of death; or if he is unable to
make such arrangement, shall within twenty four
hours of death, report the fact to the Sarpanch
or to the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat or
to such person as the Gram Panchayat may
appoint in this behalf.
(2) Every person who becomes aware that a corpse
is lying in any place uncared for, shall forth
with report that fact to the Sarpanch or to such
person as the Gram Panchayat may appoint in
this behalf and also to the occupier or owner
of that place.
(3) Nothing in this rule shall apply to a case where
the body of the deceased is required for the
purpose of a judicial or police, enquiry
4. Gram Panchayat to arrange for disposal of
corpse.-
(1) On receipt of a report under sub-rule (2) of rule
3, the Gram Panchayat shall arrange for the
disposal of the corpse.
(2) The expense’s incurred for such disposal shall
be recovered from the heirs of the deceased
if any, as arrears of tax levied under the Act.
978 [2025] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
(3) If there be no such heirs the expenses shall be
borne by the Gram Panchayat.
5. Place for disposal of corpses.-
No place other than a place approved by the Gram
Panchayat by an order in writing duly published in the
village, which shall be known as burning ghat or burial
ground or a place determined by the Government
or in the Government records shall be used for the
disposal of a corpse by burning, burying or otherwise.”
22.4 Even according to Annexure P-10 dated 09.01.2025 which is
issued by the Sarpanch and Deputy Sarpanch of “Barahpal
Chhindwada Gram Panchayat No.1, 2 and 3, no graveyard
of Christian community at any place within the limits of Gram
Panchayat Chhindwada Nos.1, 2 and 3 is established yet. For
immediate reference, the said certificate is extracted as under:
“OFFICE
Barahpal Chindwara Gram Panchayat No. 1, 2, 3
It is certified that till date there is no graveyard of
Christian community at any place within the limits of
Gram Panchayat Chindwara No. 1, Gram Panchayat
Chindwada No. 2, Gram Panchayat Chindwada No.
3 under the Barahpal Chindwara.
That Tehsil of Barahpal Chindwara comes under
Darbha, P.S. Dharbha, District Baster, Chhattisgarh.
Sd/-
Sarpanch
Sd/-
Deputy Sarpanch
Dated: 09.01.2025”
22.5 Therefore, even according to the Panchayat, there is no
graveyard established yet for the Christian community by the
Gram Panchayat within the premises of the village Chhindwada.
Even according to learned senior counsel for the appellant,
members of the Christian community were being orally
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 979
Ramesh Baghel v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others
permitted to utilise a portion of the graveyard meant for the
Mahra community adjacent to the area meant for the Hindu
Mahra community. This is probably owing to there being no
formal declaration by the Chhindwada Gram Panchayat.
22.6 It was the duty and obligation on the part of the Gram Panchayat
to have formally demarcated an area for burial of Christians
in Chhindwada village i.e. within its jurisdiction. Instead, the
respondents have stated that a designated burial space for
Christians at village Karkapal 20-25 or 40-45 kilometers away
comprised in Khasra No.9/94 admeasuring 1.96 acres - 2.15
acres, if adjoining land is also included - is sufficient to cater
to the needs of the Christian burials of four villages and is
being used for that purpose. However, there is no material
produced before this Court to show that the burial of Christians
deceased at Chhindwada village has taken place at Karkapal.
No Government order or notification has been produced. There
is also no material produced to show that Chhindwada Gram
Panchayat has, in any manner prescribed the burial ground
at Karkapal village to be the burial ground for Christians
from Chhindwada village. Furthermore, no material has been
produced before this Court to support the averment that the
graveyard in village Chhindwada has been designated for
exclusive use of members of the Hindu community nor has
any material been supplied to suggest such custom.
22.7 Reliance placed by the respondents on Rule 8 of the 1999 Rules
can be considered. Rule 8 of the 1999 Rules reads as under:
“8. Digging of grave. - Grave not to be dug within
a distance of one metre from any grave or outside
the place marked by the Gram Panchayat for this
purpose.”
In the instant case, respondent No. 9-Gram Panchayat has
categorically stated that no place has been earmarked by
it for the purpose of graveyard for Christian community. As
no place has been marked by the Gram Panchayat, Rule 8
cannot be applied in the instant case. In the absence of such
an earmarking by the Gram Panchayat for Christian community
in the village, the alternative that the appellant has, is to utilise
980 [2025] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
his private agricultural land for the burial which is also a plea
of the appellant. Such a plea is reasonable.
22.8 The contra suggestion made on behalf of the respondent-State
is that the appellant could conduct funeral rites of his father at
the burial ground at Karkapal which is about 20-25 or 40-45
kms away from the village in which the appellant resides. This
option was in any case available to the appellant. On the other
hand, the appellant sought permission to bury his father either
in the area orally demarcated for the Christian community in
the graveyard reserved for the Mahra Christian community
in Chhindwada village or alternatively, in the agricultural land
of the appellant herein. It is for this reason that the appellant
approached the High Court. This grievance of the appellant
has not been appreciated by the High Court which instead
directed the appellant to conduct the funeral and bury his
father 20-25 or more kms away from his village. The appellant
need not have approached the High Court if he had exercised
the said option.
22.9 The appellant, on the other hand, is ventilating a grievance
based on discrimination and prejudice. The High Court ought
to have appreciated the predicament and difficulty faced by
the appellant and could have found a solution in the prayers
sought for by the appellant by directing the Gram Panchayat
to permit burial either at the graveyard which was being
used by Mahra Community following the Christian faith or
in the alternative, permitted burial at the appellant’s private
agricultural land. Instead, the High Court has accepted a
suggestion made by the respondents which has the effect of
displacing a practice prevailing in Chhindwada village which
was also acceptable to the Gram Panchayat over decades.
As a result, there was harmony between all communities of
the village. But the death of the appellant’s father, who was
a pastor in the village, has given rise to disharmony in the
village because it has not been suitably solved by the village
Panchayat by finding an amicable solution.
22.10 The village Panchayat has abdicated its duty to ensure burial
of appellant’s father within a period of 24 hours of his death.
Instead, the Panchayat has been taking sides which led to the
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 981
Ramesh Baghel v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others
appellant approaching the High Court and finally this Court.
Had the village Panchayat quelled the “aggressive objections”
and “threats to the appellant’s family”, the matter would have
been resolved at the village itself. Instead, the affidavit of
the ASP, Bastar, states “Any person who has forsworn the
tradition of the community or has converted into a Christian
is not allowed to be buried at the village graveyard”. This
declaration by the respondents is unfortunate. To my mind,
this is nothing but a violation of Article 14 and Article 15(1) of
the Constitution of India which speak of equality before the
law and the equal protection of the laws as well as places a
strict prohibition of discrimination on the ground of religion,
respectively.
For ease of reference, Articles 14 and 15(1) are extracted
as under:
“14. Equality before law. — The State shall not deny
to any person equality before the law or the equal
protection of the laws within the territory of India.
15. Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of
religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.—
(1) The State shall not discriminate against any
citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste,
sex, place of birth or any of them.”
22.11 What could have been solved amicably at the village level
is now given a different taint by the respondent-authorities.
Such an attitude on the part of the respondents betrays
their responsibility towards all citizens residing in the village
and smacks of hostile discrimination and divisiveness and
gives an impression that certain sections of the village can
be discriminated against. It is not known as to under what
authority, such a declaration could have been made by the
deponent, who is the ASP, Bastar whose duty is to maintain
law and order and ensure peace and harmony in the society.
What is the basis for such a declaration? Such an attitude on
the part of local authorities, at the village level or higher level,
indicates a betrayal of the sublime principles of secularism
and the glorious traditions of our country which believes in
982 [2025] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
“Sarva Dharma Samanvaya/Sarva Dharma Samabhava” which
is the essence of secularism. Secularism together with the
concept of fraternity, as envisaged under our Constitution, is
a reflection of harmony between all religious faiths leading
to common brotherhood and unity of the social fabric in the
country. It is therefore incumbent on all citizens as well as
institutions, whether of governance or otherwise, to foster
fraternity amongst the citizens. 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.
22.12 It also needs to be observed that, in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of this case, the grievance of the appellant
stems from respondent No.9-Gram Panchayat’s failure to
discharge its duty to approve a place for burial for Mahra
community following Christian faith howsoever small in
number they may be within its jurisdiction. This has led to
social ostracisation of the appellant and his family.
23. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case
and particularly bearing in mind that appellant’s father’s body is lying
in the mortuary of the District Hospital since 07.01.2025 only because
of the objections raised not being quelled by the Gram Panchayat,
it is just and proper that he is accorded a dignified burial.
24. We have heard Sri Colin Gonsalves, learned senior counsel for
the appellant, learned Solicitor General, learned Advocate General
and other counsel for the respondent(s)-State and others and have
closely perused the memorandum of Special Leave Petition/Appeal
as well as the three affidavits filed on behalf of the respondent(s)-
State and other authorities and two additional affidavits filed on
behalf of the appellant. The interest of justice would be best served
in the instant case by passing the following order. This is by bearing
in mind the statement of the respondent-deponent in the affidavit
dated 19.01.2025 in paragraph ‘13’ thereof and the peculiar facts
and circumstances of this case. Even according to the respondents,
if there is no designated burial space, in such an event, permission
is granted for burial in private land. It is the case of the respondent-
Gram Panchayat that there is no formal designation of a graveyard
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 983
Ramesh Baghel v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others
for Christian community, therefore, permission ought to be accorded
to the members of that community to bury their dead in their private
land. Further, the body of the appellant’s father is lying in the mortuary
since 07.01.2025 for the last three weeks and he is entitled to a
decent and dignified burial. Hence, the following directions:
(i) Therefore, the appellant shall be permitted to conduct the
funeral rites of his father in his private agricultural land at village
Chhindwada at the earliest.
(ii) However, the appellant shall not take any advantage, legally
or otherwise, for having been permitted to bury his father in
his private land.
(iii) Since the death of the appellant’s father has given rise to
the unsavoury controversy regarding the place of burial, we
direct respondent Nos.3 to 9 to provide adequate security
and protection to the appellant and his family to carry out the
funeral rites of his father at his private agricultural land at village
Chhindwada at the earliest.
(iv) It is observed that the implementation of the aforesaid directions
shall be expedited bearing in mind the peculiar facts of this case
as appellant’s father’s body is in the mortuary since 07.01.2025.
(v) The respondent-State and its local authorities are directed to
demarcate exclusive sites as grave yards for burial of Christians
throughout the State in accordance with law. This direction is
being issued in order to avoid controversies such as in the
instant case. The said exercise shall be carried out within a
period of two months from today. The aforesaid direction is
issued having regard to Rule 5 and Rule 8 of the Rules.
(vi) Although, by consensus, we have issued certain directions as
per the Order of the Court, nevertheless, direction five above
shall be complied with by the respondent-State and its authorities
dehors the direction issued under Article 142 of the Constitution.
25. It is concluded by quoting from a recent judgment of this Court:
In Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs. Union of India, (2023)
8 SCC 402, in paragraph 12, it was observed by this
Court as under:
984 [2025] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
“12. The history of any nation cannot haunt the future
generations of a nation to the point that succeeding
generations become prisoners of the past. The
golden principle of fraternity which again is enshrined
in the Preamble is of the greatest importance and
rightfully finds its place in the Preamble as a constant
reminder to all stakeholders that maintenance
of harmony between different sections alone will
lead to the imbibing of a true notion of nationhood
bonding sections together for the greater good of the
nation and finally, establish a sovereign democratic
republic. We must constantly remind ourselves that
courts of law, as indeed every part of the “State”,
must be guided by the sublime realisation, that
Bharat is a secular nation committed to securing
fundamental rights to all sections as contemplated
in the Constitution.”
One can also reminiscence upon the words of O.
Chinnappa Reddy, J. in Bijoe Emmanuel vs. State of
Kerala, (1986) 3 SCC 615:
“Our tradition teaches tolerance; our philosophy
preaches tolerance; our Constitution practises
tolerance; let us not dilute it.”
It would also be apposite to recollect the words of Mahatma
Gandhi as under:
“Our existence as embodied beings is purely
momentary; what are a hundred years in eternity?
But if we shatter the chains of egotism, and melt
into the ocean of humanity, we share the dignity. …”
Let the State and its authorities realise the import of these
valuable thoughts.
The impugned order of the High Court is set aside.
Consequently, the appeal is disposed in the aforesaid
terms.
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 985
Ramesh Baghel v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others
Judgment
Satish Chandra Sharma, J.
1. Leave Granted.
2. I have perused the erudite opinion authored by my esteemed sister,
Her Ladyship B.V. Nagarathna, J. However, despite making a sincere
endeavour, I am unable to persuade myself to subscribe to the
direction(s) issued therein. Hence, this differing opinion.
Proceedings Before the High Court
3. The present proceeding(s) emanates from Writ Petition No. 152 of
2025 filed by the Appellant herein, before the Hon’ble High Court
of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (the “High Court”) whereunder, the
Appellant i.e., the son of one Late Subhash Baghel sought the
following reliefs:
“10.1) That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to
issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ
directing the respondents to permit the petitioner and his
family to carry out last rites of his father’s mortal remains
as per Christian religious customs at the area earmarked
for Christians in the village common graveyard located in
village Chhindawada Police Station and Tahsil Darbha,
District Bastar (C.G.) in the interest of justice.
10.2) That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue
a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing
the respondents to provide adequate police protection and
local administration’s support while carrying out last rites
of his father’s mortal remains as per Christian religious
customs at the area earmarked for Christians in the village
common graveyard located in village Chhindawada Police
Station and Tahsil Darbha, District Bastar (C.G.) in view of
the peculiar facts mentioned in this case. further, pass an
order directing the respondents to provide police protection
to petitioner and his family till the continuation of threat in
the interest of justice.
986 [2025] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
10.3) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem
and proper in the present circumstances of the case, in
the interest of justice”
(the “Underlying Writ Petition”)
4. The case set up by the Appellant before the High Court in the
Underlying Writ Petition was as under:
(a) The Appellant contended that he is a third-generation Christian
belonging to the Apostolic Church. The Appellants’ father i.e.,
Late Subhas Baghel was anointed a pastor between ’86-’87
and has since been involved in religious activities of the Church
situated in their village (the “Deceased”).
(b) In village Chhindawada, a burial ground is situated which is
allocated to the various sect(s) i.e., (i) the Tribal community;
(ii) the Hindu community; and (iii) the Christian community;
(the “Subject Burial Ground”) and accordingly, the Appellants’
relatives namely, Late Shanti Baghel and the Appellants’
grandfather – Late Lakheshwar Baghel have been interred at
the Subject Burial Ground.
(c) In this context, it was stated that the Appellants’ father passed
away on 07.01.2025 at 7:00 AM due to chronic illness and other
age related ailment(s). Following, the demise of the Appellants’
father, the family intended to conduct the last rites i.e., burial,
at the “Christian Section” of the Subject Burial Ground.
(d) Pursuant to the aforesaid decision by the family, it was contended
that several threat(s) were extended to the Appellants’ family
on account of the objection(s) raised by the villagers against
the burial of the Deceased at the Subject Burial Ground i.e., a
site designated for the burial of Hindu Tribals.
(e) In view of the aforesaid, it was contended that Deceased’s
remains are retained in the mortuary at the Medical College
situated at Jagdalpur; and thus, the Appellant sought protection
and assistance from the relevant authorities to ensure a dignified
and proper burial of the Deceased in the “Christian Section” of
the Subject Burial Ground.
5. On the other hand, the Respondent State opposed the submission
of the Appellant before the Hon’ble High Court and stated that the
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 987
Ramesh Baghel v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others
Subject Burial Ground was meant exclusively for Hindus; and rejected
the Appellants’ contention qua the presence of any “Christian Section”
within the precinct of the Subject Burial Ground. Accordingly, it was
submitted that the Appellant may proceed with the last rites of the
Deceased at a burial ground specifically designated for persons of
the Christian Community in village Karkapal i.e., a distance of 20-
25KM from village Chhindawada i.e., the Appellants’ native.
6. Vide an order dated 09.01.2025 in the Underlying Writ Petition
(the “Impugned Order”), the High Court after hearing the rival
contention(s) of the Parties, dismissed the Underlying Writ Petition
observing inter alia that the prayer sought by the Appellant was
contrary to the rigours of (i) Chhattisgarh Gram Panchayat (Regulating
Places for Disposal of Dead Bodies, Carcasses, and Other Offensive
Matter) Rules, 1999; and (ii) Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam,
1993 – on account of the specific prohibition against the disposal
of corpses by way of either a cremation or a burial in any areas
other than those specifically designated. Moreover, it was observed
therein that a burial ground specifically demarcated for the members
of the Christian Community was available in the nearby area; and
accordingly, it would not be proper to grant the Appellant the relief
prayed for by way of the Underlying Writ Petition as it may cause
unrest and disharmony amongst the public at large
Proceedings Before This Hon’ble Court
7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the Appellant instituted SLP (C) No.
1399 of 2025 i.e., now this instant appeal, assailing the correctness
of the Impugned Order. On 17.01.2025, this Hon’ble Court passed
the following order:
“Issue notice to the respondents.
Petitioner’s counsel is also permitted to serve the standing
counsel for first respondent-State.
Learned counsel, Mr. Prashant Singh who is present in
Court accepts notice for the respondents.
Hence, list the matter on 20.01.2025.”
8. On 20.01.2025, upon a request made by the Learned Solicitor
General of India appearing on behalf of the Respondent State, the
matter was adjourned to 22.01.2025.
988 [2025] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
9. On 22.01.2025, in view of the urgency of the underlying lis, judgement/
orders were reserved on the relief sought by the Appellant herein.
Submissions of the Parties
10. Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf
of the Appellant made the following submissions:
(a) The Subject Burial Ground is divided into separate designated
areas for members of different communities including inter alia
member(s) of the Tribal Community; members of the Hindu
Community; and member(s) of the Christian Community;
(b) That pursuant to an oral permission obtained from the Gram
Panchayat, an area was demarcated within the Subject Burial
Ground for members of the Christian Community;
(c) In order to bolster the aforesaid contention(s), Mr. Gonsalves
also drew our attention to certain photograph(s); affidavits of 3rd
parties; and a hand-drawn map to support his claim vis-à-vis the
presence of a “Christian Section” of the Subject Burial Ground;
(d) That the act of the villagers preventing the burial of the
Deceased’s remains in the “Christian Section” of the Subject
Burial Ground was violative of the fundamental rights including
but not limited to the ‘right to dignity in death’;
(e) That the Impugned Order by which the Appellant has been
directed to bury the Deceased’s remains at a burial ground
specifically designated for persons of the Christian Community
in village Karkapal i.e., a distance of 20-25KM from village
Chhindawada i.e., the Appellants’ native – is violative of his
fundamental right(s);
(f) In the alternative, it was submitted that the Appellant be permitted
to bury the remain(s) of the Deceased on his own land.
11. Mr. Tushar Mehta, Learned Solicitor General of India appearing on
behalf of the Respondent State submitted as under:
(a) That member(s) of the Tribal Community form a large segment of
the demographic of the Respondent State. The said member(s) of
the Tribal Community customarily bury its deceased member(s)
at “Hindu-Tribal-Burial-Sites” – and the Subject Burial Ground
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 989
Ramesh Baghel v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others
is one such designated site for the remains of the deceased
persons belonging to the Hindu Tribal Community.
(b) Mr. Mehta underscored that certain sub-sect of person(s)
converted to Christianity, however their number(s) remain
sparse – on an average, in a village with a population of close
to 6,000 (six thousand) person(s), merely 100 (one hundred)
persons belong to the Christian Community. Accordingly, for
every cluster of 3 (three) – 4 (four) such villages, the Respondent
State has demarcated/ designated one identified burial ground
for all the Christian members of the community. Turning to the
case at hand, it was submitted that all the persons belonging to
the Christian Community from (i) village Chhindawada; (ii) village
Munga; (iii) village Tirathgarh; (iv) village Darbha; and (v) village
Karkapal buried the remains of their ancestors at burial ground
specifically designated for persons of the Christian Community
in village Karkapal situated at Khasra No. 9/94 admeasuring
1.96 acres which has further been expanded up to 2.15 acres.
(c) Mr. Mehta stressed on the fact that burial/cremation sites for all
the communities including inter alia Hindus, Tribals, Christians
and Muslims are governed under statutory rules. The said rules,
ensure that designated spaces are utilised in a manner that is
respectful towards the deceased’s rights under Article 21 and
Article 25 of the Constitution of India.
(d) It was vehemently contended that burial rights align with
community practices that are protected under Article 25 of the
Constitution of India – accordingly, it was submitted that burial
sites designated for specific communities cannot be claimed for
burial of person(s) belonging to other communities or religions.
(e) Mr. Mehta while conceding that the matters pertaining to last
rites including inter alia religious practices revolving around
burials, is protected under Article 21 and Article 25 of the
Constitution of India, submitted that the protection would not
extend to arbitrary demands of individual persons. Moreover,
any such demand / act would always be subject to the caveat
of public order.
(f) In this context, it was submitted that, a public order situation
may erupt on the ground, if the Appellant is permitted to bury
990 [2025] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
the remains of the Deceased on the Subject Burial Ground.
The occasional deviations in the past (if any) cannot alter the
site’s primary purpose or community rights.
(g) Reliance was placed on Rule 8 of the Chhattisgarh Gram
Panchayat (Regulating Places for Disposal of Dead Bodies,
Carcasses and Other Offensive Matter) Rules, 1999 to contend
that the Appellants’ alternative plea to bury the Deceased in
their private land was in the teeth of statutory rules, having the
force of law.
(h) Lastly, Mr. Mehta submitted that the Respondent State, with a
view to resolve the controversy was ready and willing to provide
the Appellant with an ambulance to transport the remains of
the Deceased to the burial ground specifically designated for
persons of the Christian Community in village Karkapal; and
further undertaken to provide security (if deemed necessary by
the State Authorities.
12. The Appellant denied the offer made by the Respondent State vis-à-vis
providing an ambulance to transport the remains of the Deceased.
13. During the course of argument(s), the Respondent State was asked
to furnish an affidavit placing on record the particulars of the burial
ground designated for members of the Christian Community in village
Karkapal. The Respondent State has placed on record an affidavit
dated 22.01.2025 whereunder a site situated at Khasra No. 9/94,
village Karkapal admeasuring close to 2.15 acres (including the use
of the adjacent land) has been stated to be the designated burial
ground for member(s) of the Christian Community (the “Designated
Christian Burial Ground”).
14. Thus, at this juncture, this Court is tasked with resolving the deadlock
between the Parties in view of the fact that the remains of the
Deceased are lying at the Medical College situated at Jagdalpur for
a prolonged period of 15 (fifteen) days.
Analysis & Directions
15. Having given my anxious considerations to the competing
submissions, the fulcrum of the dispute seems to boil down to whether
the fundamental right to conduct last rites as per ones’ own specific
religion or custom would extend to include the “place” where such
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 991
Ramesh Baghel v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others
ceremonies are scheduled to take place; and thus, in the context of
the present lis – the right to choose the place of burial in a blanket
& unilateral manner?
16. At this juncture, it would be important to refer to the relevant rules
framed by the Respondent State in exercise of its powers conferred
under Section 95 read with Section 49(12) of the Chhattisgarh
Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 i.e., the Chhattisgarh Gram Panchayat
(Regulating Places for Disposal of Dead Bodies, Carcasses and Other
Offensive Matter) Rules, 1999 (the “CG Rules”). Rules 3, 4, 5 & 8
of CG Rules are relevant to the present controversy, the same are
reproduced as under:
“3. Disposal of corpse within 24 hours.-
(1) When a person has died in any place within the
Gram Panchayat area, the occupier or owner of such
place shall, to the best of his ability, arrange through the
deceased person’s relatives or otherwise for the corpse to
be buried, burnt or otherwise disposed of in accordance
with the custom of the deceased person’s religion within
twenty four hours of death; or if he is unable to make such
arrangement, shall within twenty-four hours of death, report
the fact to the Sarpanch or to the Secretary of the Gram
Panchayat or to such a person as the Gram Panchayat
may appoint in this behalf.
(2) Every person who becomes aware that a corpse is lying
in any place uncared for, shall forth with report that fact to
the Sarpanch or to such person as the Gram Panchayat
may appoint in this behalf and also to the occupier or
owner of that place.
(3) Nothing in this rule shall apply to a case where the
body of the deceased is required for the purpose of a
judicial or police, enquiry.
4. Gram Panchayat to arrange for disposal of corpse.-
(1) On receipt of a report under sub-rule (2) or rule 3,
the Gram Panchayat shall arrange for the disposal of the
corpse.
992 [2025] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
(2) The expense’s incurred for such disposal shall be
recovered from the heirs of the deceased if any, as arrears
of tax levied under the Act.
(3) If there be no such heirs the expenses shall be borne
by the Gram Panchayat.
5. Place for disposal of corpses.-
No place other than a place approved by the Gram
Panchayat by an order in writing duly published in the
village, which shall be known as burning ghat or burial
ground or a place determined by the Government or in
the Government records shall be used for the disposal of
a corpse by burning, burying or otherwise.
x-x-x
8. Digging of grave. Grave not to be dug within a distance
of one metre from any grave or outside the place marked
by the Gram Panchayat for this purpose.”
17. A perusal of the CG Rules would reveal that graves cannot be
arbitrarily constructed; and must be established in designated areas
identified by the Gram Panchayat. The rationale behind the same
appears to be extremely logical – the designation of an identified
areas serves a salutary purpose of ensuring a systemised procedure
of conducting last rites whilst paying due deference to the surrounding
sensitivities but also, importantly encompasses a public-health angle1.
The earmarking of designated areas for every community in every
village is an evolutionary process that is not perfect and slow-moving,
however, it seeks to delicately handle aspects of human life, and
beyond which must receive adequate judicial attention. Thus, with
the respect, I am unable to appreciate the need to exercise of our
equitable jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India
to overcome the prohibition encapsulated under Rule 8 of the CG
Rules; and permit the Appellant to bury the remains of the Deceased
on his private land, more-so in light of the fact that a designated
burial ground is present within the vicinity i.e., merely 20-25KM away
in village Karkapal.
1 The Impact of Cemeteries on the Environment and Public Health, WHO, EUR/ICP/EHNA010401(A)
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 993
Ramesh Baghel v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others
18. There can be no qualm about the fact that procedures pertaining
to last rites; and ceremonies involved, from a part of the right(s)
protected under Part III of the Constitution of India. However, to
claim that such right(s) would encompass the unqualified right
to choose the “place” of such ceremony (including burial) would
prima facie appear to stretch constitutional limits beyond what was
envisaged. It is well settled that right(s) protected under Article 21
of the Constitution of India are subject to “procedure established
by law” which is required to be to be just, fair and reasonable.2
Furthermore, the right freely to profess, practice and propagate
religion under Article 25, is ex facie subject to “public order”3; and
the Sub-Clause 2 of Article 25 enables the State to frame provisions
regulating certain activities associated with religious practices4. Thus,
to claim an absolute or unqualified right in respect of the exact
“place” of burial of a person under Article 21 and Article 25, prima
facie, appears to be circumspect. Nonetheless, a person / community
cannot altogether be denied a place to carry out last rites including
inter alia burials - on the contrary, the State has a duty to provide
members of all religious communities with identified places to carry
out last rites within the confines and limits of reason and rationality.
In the present case, the Respondent State has informed us of an
identified burial ground for members of the Christian Community
i.e., the Designated Christian Burial Ground situated in village
Karkapal merely at a distance of 20-25KM from the Deceased’s
native village. In view thereof, I see no reason why the appellant
ought to be permitted to claim an absolute or unqualified right in
respect of the Deceased’s’ exact place of burial.
19. This Court is conscious of the responsibility on its’ shoulders and
would loathe to be swayed by sweeping and illusionary claims of
a potential “public order” eruption, however, in the present case,
it cannot be said that the Respondent State have propped up the
“public order” argument as a ruse. The maintenance of “public order”
is paramount and in the larger interest of the society. Accordingly,
without commenting on the underlying sensitivities, and with a view
2 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [1978] SCR 2 621; and K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10
SCC 1
3 Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977) 1 SCC 677
4 Sri Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore, AIR 1958 SC 255
994 [2025] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
to provide the Deceased with a decent and dignified burial, the
following direction(s) appear to be just, fair and reasonable:
(a) The Appellant and his family be provided with an appropriate
site within the Designated Christian Burial Ground situated at
village Karkapal for the burial of the Deceased’s remains;
(b) The Respondent State is directed to ensure that the Appellant
and his family are provided with all ancillary logistical support for
the purpose of transferring the remains of the Deceased from
the mortuary at the Medical College situated at Jagdalpur to
Designated Christian Burial Ground situated at village Karkapal;
(c) The Respondent State shall grant the Appellant and his family
members adequate police protection which shall be reviewed
by the concerned authorities after a period of 7 (seven) days;
(d) The Respondent State shall take adequate measures to ensure
no public order incident takes place at either village Karkapal
or village Chhindawada; and
(e) The Respondent State is directed to ensure that the burial of
the remains of the Deceased takes place at the earliest. The
Appellant and his family members are directed to cooperate
with the authorities of the Respondent State who shall handle
the situation with the sensitivity it deserves.
20. Consequently, the appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms and
the Impugned Order of the High Court is upheld.
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 995
Ramesh Baghel v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others
Order
Nagarathna, J.
1. The operative portion of the judgment of Nagarathna, J. reads as
under:
“(i) Therefore, the appellant shall be permitted to conduct
the funeral rites of his father in his private agricultural
land at village Chhindwada at the earliest.
(ii) However, the appellant shall not take any advantage,
legally or otherwise, for having been permitted to bury
his father in his private land.
(iii) Since the death of the appellant’s father has given
rise to the unsavoury controversy regarding the place
of burial, we direct respondent Nos.3 to 9 to provide
adequate security and protection to the appellant and
his family to carry out the funeral rites of his father
at his private agricultural land at village Chhindwada
at the earliest.
(iv) It is observed that the implementation of the aforesaid
directions shall be expedited bearing in mind the
peculiar facts of this case as appellant’s father’s body
is in the mortuary since 07.01.2025.
(v) The respondent-State and its local authorities are
directed to demarcate exclusive sites as grave
yards for burial of Christians throughout the State in
accordance with law. This direction is being issued
in order to avoid controversies such as in the instant
case. The said exercise shall be carried out within
a period of two months from today. The aforesaid
direction is issued having regard to Rule 5 and Rule
8 of the Rules.
(vi) Although, by consensus, we have issued certain
directions as per the Order of the Court, nevertheless,
direction five above shall be complied with by the
respondent-State and its authorities dehors the
direction issued under Article 142 of the Constitution.”
996 [2025] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
2. The operative portion of the judgment of Satish Chandra Sharma,
J. reads as under:
“18. This Court is conscious of the responsibility on its’
shoulders and would loathe to be swayed by sweeping
and illusionary claims of a potential “public order” eruption,
however, in the present case, it cannot be said that the
Respondent State have propped up the “public order”
argument as a ruse. The maintenance of “public order”
is paramount and in the larger interest of the society.
Accordingly, without commenting on the underlying
sensitivities, and with a view a to provide the Deceased
with a decent and dignified burial the following direction(s)
appear to be just, fair and reasonable:
(a) The Appellant and his family be provided with an
appropriate site within the Designated Christian Burial
Ground situated at village Karkapal for the burial of
the Deceased’s remains;
(b) The Respondent State is directed to ensure that the
Appellant and his family are provided with all ancillary
logistical support for the purpose of transferring the
remains of the Deceased from the mortuary at the
Medical College situated at Jagdalpur to Designated
Christian Burial Ground situated at village Karkapal;
(c) The Respondent State shall grant the Appellant and
his family members adequate police protection which
shall be reviewed by the concerned authorities after
a period of 7 (seven) days;
(d) The Respondent State shall take adequate measures
to ensure no public order incident takes place at either
village Karkapal or village Chindwada; and
(e) The Respondent State is directed to ensure that the
burial of the remains of the Deceased takes place at
the earliest. The Appellant and his family members
are directed to cooperate with the authorities of the
Respondent State who shall handle the situation with
the sensitivity it deserves.”
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 997
Ramesh Baghel v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others
3. 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.
4. 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.
The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Result of the case: Appeal disposed of.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Decent burial"Sign in to search