Can a person be denied a burial in his own village on the basis of his faith?
Yes.
That is essentially the conclusion the Supreme Court reached on Monday as it rejected Ramesh Baghel’s plea to bury his father in their native village of Chhindwada in Chhattisgarh’s Bastar district. The village’s Hindu residents had opposed this because Baghel’s father is Christian.
The Supreme Court was hearing an appeal to the Chhattisgarh High Court’s order which had held that Baghel’s father could not be buried in the village. While the two-judge bench reached a split verdict, with one judge strongly upholding Baghel’s rights on the grounds of secularism, in the end, the court arrived at a compromise that favoured the status quo.
Baghel was ordered to bury his father in a different village, as had been demanded by the Hindu residents of Chhindwada.
A family tradition
Baghel, a third-generation Christian belonging to the New Apostolic Church, lives in his ancestral village of Chhindwada. He is from the the Mahra caste. Chhindwada, according to court records, has a population of 6,450, of which 6,000 are Adivasi and 450 belong to the Mahra community. About 100 members of the Mahra community are Christian while the rest are Hindu.
Baghel’s father, a pastor at the local church, died on January 7 after a prolonged illness.
Following his family tradition, Ramesh Baghel wanted his father to be buried in the village graveyard. However, his plan faced violent resistance from the villagers. “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,” said an affidavit by Bastar’s additional superintendent of police filed with the Supreme Court.
This communal tension between Christians and Hindus has arisen only in the last few years in Chhindwada, the affidavit said. As a result, “every time a member of Mahra Christian community 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”, the judgement reads.
Even the family’s private agricultural plot was deemed off-limits for the burial due to communal hostility. The local authorities, including the police and the gram panchayat, offered no assistance.
Left with no choice, the family had to move the body to a mortuary in Jagdalpur, about 30 km from their village.
Moving court
Baghel then approached the Chhattisgarh High Court. He argued that Christian members of his family, including his grandfather and aunt, had been buried in the village graveyard without objections. He pointed to a portion of the Mahra community graveyard that had been informally designated for Christian burials, based on oral permissions from the gram panchayat.
However, the High Court dismissed Baghel’s plea. It cited the absence of a formally designated Christian graveyard in Chhindwada and pointed to a Christian burial ground that existed in Karkapal, about 20 km away.
The court reasoned that allowing the burial in Chhindwada could lead to unrest and public disharmony and directed that Baghel’s father be buried in Karkapal.
Discriminatory move
Baghel appealed this decision in the Supreme Court. He argued that the refusal to allow his father’s burial in Chhindwada was discriminatory and violated his family’s religious and cultural rights. He also contended that the High Court had ignored longstanding burial practices in the village.
The Chhattisgarh government defended the High Court’s ruling. It claimed that the village was predominantly Adivasi and that its burial ground was designated for “deceased persons belonging to the Hindu Tribal Community”.
The state maintained that the burial ground in Karkapal was adequate for Christians from Chhindwada and neighbouring villages. It also warned that allowing the burial in Chhindwada could lead to public order problems.
Secularism vs public order
The matter was heard by a two judge bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and SC Sharma. Each delivered differing opinions, reflecting contrasting approaches to the complex balance between personal rights and community norms.
Nagarathana emphasised equality, secularism and fraternity and reflected on the judiciary’s role in safeguarding minority rights. The “social ostracisation” of Baghel’s family, she wrote, “indicates a betrayal of the sublime principles of secularism and the glorious traditions of our country which believes in Sarva Dharma Samanvaya/Sarva Dharma Samabhava which is the essence of secularism”.
Nagarathana held that “discrimination and prejudice” had driven the actions of the authorities in denying Baghel burial space. “Such an attitude on the part of respondents [executive authorities] 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,” she argued.
Citing the constitutional principle of secularism, she held that it is “incumbent on all citizens as well as institutions, whether of governance or otherwise, to foster fraternity amongst the citizens”.
Nagarathna ruled in favour of Baghel. She noted that Christian burials had been taking place in the village for decades, supported by oral permissions from the gram panchayat. Photographic evidence and affidavits from villagers corroborated this practice. She also took note of the fact that no Christian residents of Chhindwada had previously been buried in Karkapal.
She ordered that Baghel could bury his father on his private agricultural land in Chhindwada. To prevent future conflicts, she directed the state to designate Christian burial grounds across Chhattisgarh within two months.
On the other hand, Sharma prioritised public order and adhering to written rules in denying Baghel’s request. He cited the Chhattisgarh Gram Panchayat Rules, 1999, which require burials to occur in officially designated areas. He noted that there was no officially designated burial site for Christians in Chhindwada. He argued that these rules were essential for maintaining public health and community harmony.
While acknowledging the family’s right to a dignified burial, Sharma maintained that this right does not include an unqualified choice of burial site. He upheld the High Court’s decision, ruling that the burial should take place in Karkapal’s designated Christian burial ground. He emphasised that overriding state regulations could set a dangerous precedent and lead to further disputes.
Compromise verdict
In cases of split verdicts by a two-judge bench, the norm is to refer the matter to the chief justice, who then places the matter before a three-judge bench.
However, the senior judge on the bench, Nagarathna, refrained from doing so. Instead, she and Sharma arrived at a common order “in order to accord an expeditious and dignified burial” of the pastor.
As a result, the court ordered Baghel to bury his father in the Christian burial ground in Karkapal, putting in place arrangements for police protection. Conspicuous by its absence from the final verdict was the direction from Nagarathna’s order that the state government and local authorities demarcate grave yards for Christians throughout the state.
Effectively, then, the High Court’s judgement remained upheld. Sharma’s view practically became the compromise order as the Supreme Court upheld the objection of some of Chhindwada’s residents to allowing a Christian to be buried in the village.
