New Delhi: A Division Bench of the Supreme Court on Monday, January 27 gave a split verdict on the rights of a deceased Christian man to be buried in a village burial ground.
However the bench of justices Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma eventually ordered to settle the case instead of referring the matter to a larger Bench.
“We do not wish to refer the matter to third judge Bench since body is in morgue since January 7. We issue these directions under Article 142: 1) The burial shall take place in burial ground of village Karakwal (the burial space that is 20 kilometers from the deceased’s village) 2) All logistic support to be given. These directions are issued to allay the sufferings of the family of the deceased. Appeal disposed off,” the Court said, as reported by Bar and Bench.
At the outset, Justice Nagarathna in her opinion proposed that the deceased man be buried in his family’s agriculture land, despite State’s concerns that existing rules usually do not allow such an option. She further opined that the State should ideally provide security so that such a burial can be done.
She further added that “The State shall earmark graveyard for Christians throughout the states. This shall be done within two months from today.”
She opined that the attitude of the village panchayat gives rise to hostile discrimination. She also criticised the State for failing to act against such hostile attitudes thereby, “betraying” the principle of secularism.
Justice Sharma, however, expressed disagreement on these aspects stating that “There is no reason why there should be an unqualified right to burial. Sweeping and illusionary right can lead to public order disruption. Maintenance of public order is in larger interest of society,” he said.
He noted that burial grounds are often designated for specific faiths, and that in this case, the space designated for the Christian deceased was 20 kilometers away. “Here designated burial ground is present just 20 kms away in village Karakwal. To claim Article 25 rights which stretches to other burial areas of another faith would be stretching the right under Article 25. The right is subject to public order, ex facie. and State can frame regulations,” he said.
“Let the family of the deceased be earmarked an appropriate place in the ground located 20 km away. Let all transport be provided along with logistics for the transfer and burial from morgue. All police security to be given. No law and order issues would be created and that be ensured. Appeal disposed off. High Court order is upheld,” Justice Sharma ordered.
Previous hearings of the case
Notably the SC on January 22 had asked the parties to quickly come up with a solution to resolve the issue of burial of the deceased Christian man whose body has been lying in the mortuary since January 7.
During the hearing of the case on January 22, Senior Advocate Colin Gonzavles who appeared for the petitioner had submitted that there is an area delineated for the burial of Christians in the petitioner’s native village itself.
“Where we have a place de facto delineated in the village, to ask me to go outside (for burial) is discriminatory”, the senior lawyer said.
Further, he argued that the State’s claim that there is a designated burial area outside of the native village in question is an excuse contrived to not permit Christians to bury their dead bodies in their land. It is a patent, hostile discrimination against persons who have converted to Christianity from their original tribe/caste, Gonzavles stated.
Moreover, the senior counsel submitted that there are various graves of Christian deceased persons in the village in question where even the accentors of the petitioner have been buried.
“Let me bury where my ancestors are. Until now nobody has gone to the designated burial area (outside the resident village),” said Gonzalves.
Meanwhile appearing for the State, the Solicitor General of India (SG) Tushar Mehta, on the other hand, argued that there is a burial area designated for Christians situated around twenty kilometres away from the village in question. It was further submitted that the Christian residents of four neighbouring villages carry out their burial in that designated area.
Further, the SG argued that allowing Christians to bury their dead in the village in question would disturb the public order.
“Suppose tomorrow a Hindu says I want to be buried in a Muslim burial ground? It is a public order issue. Public order is an exception”, SG Mehta said.
Earlier, the petitioner Ramesh Baghel, approached the apex court seeking permission to bury his deceased father Subhas, a former pastor and a resident of Chhindawada village of Bastar after the Bilaspur high court on January 9 turned down his plea on the basis of a submission made by the Gram Panchayat stating no separate burial ground for Christians in the village.
The High Court turned down the request, underlining that the same could cause unrest and disharmony in public at large. Baghel however via his counsel challenged the high court order in apex court on January 20.
During the hearing on January 20, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the bench that there was no burial ground for Christians in the village and the man could be buried around 20km away from the village.
Baghel’s counsel Collin Gonsalves however, said the affidavit submitted by the state showed his family members were also buried in the village and the deceased was not being allowed the burial as he was a Christian.
Replying to which Mehta argued that the petitioner was adamant to bury his father in the burial ground of his family’s native village to create unrest between tribal Hindus and tribal Christians. He further requested the court for time to argue the matter in detail, after which the bench scheduled the hearing for Wednesday.
Dispute over pastor’s burial
Dispute broke out between the two sides in Chhindawada village after a group of villagers objected to the burial of Subhas, citing no Christian graveyard in the village. The deceased son then reportedly approached the police however no amicable solution was agreed upon. The body of the deceased man was then shifted to a morgue on January 7.
Baghel then approached the high court, stating that the village had a graveyard in which a specific area was verbally allotted to the members of the Christian community for burial purposes. Though the high court’s bench turned down his request after a certificate of the Gram Panchayat stated that there was no separate burial grounds for the Christians in the village.
Notably, cases pertaining to dispute over burials of the dead ones in interiors of Bastar have turned heads in the past as well, reflecting the growing discomfort between the Hindus and the Christian community.
