In a recent case that underscores the complex interplay between religious rights and local customs in India, the Supreme Court delivered a split verdict concerning a Christian man's request to bury his deceased father in their native village of Chindwara, Chhattisgarh. The case highlights the challenges faced by religious minorities in practicing their rites within traditional community frameworks.
Background of the Case
On January 7, 2025, Subhash Baghel, a Christian pastor and member of the Mahra tribal community, passed away due to prolonged illness. His son, Ramesh Baghel, sought to perform the last rites and bury his father's remains in the designated area for Christians within the village graveyard of Chindwara. Historically, this graveyard had been used by the family, with both Ramesh's aunt and grandfather interred there. However, some villagers vehemently opposed this, asserting that the burial ground was exclusively for Hindu tribals and not for converts to Christianity. The situation escalated to the point where local authorities intervened, and the deceased's body remained in the mortuary since his passing.
Legal Proceedings and High Court's Decision
Facing resistance from the villagers and local authorities, Ramesh approached the Chhattisgarh High Court, seeking permission to bury his father in the village graveyard. The High Court, in its order dated January 9, 2025, denied the plea. The court noted that while there was no separate burial ground for Christians in Chindwara, an alternative existed in the nearby village of Karkapal, approximately 20-25 kilometers away. The court opined that granting the relief sought could potentially cause unrest and disturb public harmony, suggesting that the burial be conducted in Karkapal.
Supreme Court's Deliberations
Dissatisfied with the High Court's decision, Ramesh escalated the matter to the Supreme Court. A bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma heard the case. The proceedings revealed a divergence in perspectives between the two justices.
Justice Nagarathna expressed deep concern over the state's inability to resolve such a sensitive issue, emphasizing the pain caused to the petitioner. She questioned why a person who had lived his entire life in a village should be denied the right to be buried there. Highlighting the secular fabric of the nation, she remarked on the importance of protecting the rights of religious minorities and ensuring that secularism and fraternity are upheld. She also pointed out that no objections had been raised in the past when other Christian tribals were buried in the same graveyard, questioning the sudden resistance in this instance.
On the other hand, Justice Sharma focused on the procedural aspects, noting that the state had designated specific burial grounds for different communities to maintain public order. He emphasized that the burial should take place only at the officially designated site for Christians in Karkapal, aligning with the state's guidelines to prevent potential communal tensions.
State's Position
Representing the state, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the village burial ground was reserved exclusively for Hindu tribals, as per established customs and statutory rules. He expressed concerns that allowing a Christian burial in this space could set a precedent leading to disturbances between converted and non-converted tribals across the country. Mehta emphasized the need to approach the matter without emotion, considering its broader implications on public order and community relations.
Petitioner's Argument
Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, representing Ramesh, contended that the state's stance was discriminatory. He highlighted that the petitioner's relatives had been buried in the village graveyard without prior objections, suggesting that the current resistance was a recent development influenced by communal elements aiming to marginalize Christians. Gonsalves argued that forcing the petitioner to bury his father 20 kilometers away was an infringement on his religious rights and set a dangerous precedent of ostracizing converts.
Final Verdict and Directions
Given the lack of consensus between the justices and the urgency of the situation, with the body lying in the mortuary for over three weeks, the bench refrained from referring the matter to a larger bench. Instead, invoking their powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice, they issued a consensual direction. The court ordered that the burial be conducted at the designated Christian burial ground in Karkapal. The state and local authorities were directed to provide all necessary logistical support and adequate police protection to ensure a dignified and expeditious burial.
The court clarified that this direction was issued considering the peculiar facts of the case and to alleviate the suffering of the petitioner and his family, without setting a binding precedent for future cases.
Implications of the Judgment
This case brings to the forefront the delicate balance between respecting local customs and upholding individual religious rights. It underscores the challenges faced by religious minorities in practicing their rites within traditional community frameworks. The Supreme Court's split verdict reflects the broader societal debate on accommodating religious diversity while maintaining public order. The judgment also highlights the need for clear policies and dialogue to prevent such conflicts in the future, ensuring that the rights of all communities are respected in a harmonious manner.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.