The recent burial dispute in Chhattisgarh has shed light on significant issues concerning religious discrimination, constitutional rights, and the maintenance of public order. A pastor, a Christian convert from the Mahar community, was denied burial in both the village graveyard and his family’s private land due to opposition from local residents. The Supreme Court bench was divided on this matter, with Justice Nagarathna condemning the exclusion as discriminatory based on constitutional principles, while Justice Sharma emphasized the necessity of public order and adherence to legal procedures.
The conflict originated in Chhindawada village, following the passing of a Christian convert pastor from the Mahar community. Local authorities and villagers opposed his burial in the public graveyard or on his family’s agricultural land, citing the absence of a designated Christian burial ground in the vicinity. As the body remained in the mortuary for weeks, the pastor’s son, Ramesh Baghel, sought legal intervention to secure burial rights.
Local authorities and residents argued that the village graveyard was not intended for Christian burials. Both the gram panchayat and the police contended that community opposition warranted their decision against allowing the burial in the village.
Initially, the High Court ruled that the pastor should be buried in a Christian burial ground located 20 to 25 kilometers from the village. However, the pastor’s family appealed to the Supreme Court, seeking permission for burial within the village to honor their wishes and uphold their religious sentiments.
Justice Nagarathna expressed strong disapproval of the local authorities' actions, labeling them as discriminatory and a breach of constitutional principles of equality and secularism. She referenced Articles 14 and 15, arguing that denying the deceased burial rights in the village graveyard based on his religion constituted “hostile discrimination.” Her remarks indicated a concerning trend where certain communities appear marginalized and treated unjustly.
In contrast, Justice Sharma focused on procedural matters, stressing that while Article 25 guarantees the right to practice religion, such rights are subject to considerations of public order and health. He argued that an unqualified right to choose a burial place could not be claimed, especially when it raises public concerns.
Faced with a split opinion, the two-judge bench reached a compromise, permitting the burial to take place in Karkapal village, approximately 20 km away. Despite her dissenting opinion, Justice Nagarathna concurred with this decision to expedite the end of the family’s prolonged distress. She urged the state to address the burial needs of Christian communities throughout Chhattisgarh within two months.
This case highlights the challenges that religious minorities face in accessing equal rights and the tension between constitutional principles and local customs. It underscores the urgent need for infrastructure and administrative measures to ensure inclusivity and prevent such disputes from occurring in the future.
Justice Nagarathna directed the state government to identify and allocate burial spaces for Christians in all districts of Chhattisgarh. This initiative aims to prevent similar disputes and guarantee that all communities have equal access to burial rights, emphasizing that “the strength of a nation lies in its ability to safeguard the dignity and rights of all its citizens, regardless of their faith.”
Kutos : AI Assistant!
