A division bench of the Supreme Court on Monday delivered a split verdict on a petition challenging the Chhattisgarh High Court’s January 9 ruling denying a Christian pastor’s son the right to bury his father’s body at a graveyard in Bastar’s Chhindawada village, Bar and Bench reported.

However, the judges passed common directions to settle the matter instead of referring it to a larger bench since the pastor’s body had been kept in a morgue since January 7, Live Law reported.

The bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma directed that the pastor’s body be buried 20 km from the village, as suggested by the Chhattisgarh government.

“These directions are issued to allay the sufferings of the family of the deceased,” the court said.

On January 20, the court said that it was pained that the Chhattisgarh government and High Court had not been able to resolve the complaint of Ramesh Baghel, who has not been able to bury his father Subhash due to objections from residents.

Subhash, a senior citizen, died on January 7 due to illness and his body has been kept in a mortuary since.

Baghel moved the Supreme Court after the High Court rejected his plea on January 9.

The High Court, in its order, noted that the Christian community does not have a separate graveyard in the village but has a separate burial ground in Karkapal village, about 20 km away.

During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Chhattisgarh, reiterated that the burial must take place at the “designated” graveyard in Karkapal. He said the case was a matter of maintaining law and order and needed to be dealt with sensitively.

On Monday, Nagarathna said that the refusal to bury the pastor at the village burial ground was unfortunate, discriminatory and unconstitutional, Bar and Bench reported.

The judge criticised the panchayat, which was against the man’s burial in the village, saying that it had given rise to hostile discrimination. She also criticised the state government for failing to act and “betraying” the principle of secularism.

She proposed in her judgement that the man be buried in his family’s private agricultural land in the village. This was despite the concerns raised by the state government that rules usually do not allow such a burial.

Nagarathna said that the state should ideally provide security so that such a burial can be done.

She also said that the government must earmark a graveyard for Christians across the states within two months.

However, Sharma said in his judgement that “sweeping and illusionary right can lead to public order disruption”, Bar and Bench reported. He said that maintaining public order is in the larger interest of society.

Upholding the High Court’s decision, Sharma said that burial grounds are often earmarked for specific religious communities and that in this case, the area designated for Christians was 20 km away. He said that the freedom of religion cannot be extended to claim the right to be buried in spaces earmarked for other religious groups.

Village residents told The Indian Express that the dispute about burials began just over a year ago, following a panchayat resolution passed on February 7, which prohibited burials for those who had converted to other religions.

Ramesh Baghel told the newspaper that although he plans to continue his fight to fulfill his promise to his father, “seeing his body might weaken my resolve”.