New Delhi: The dispute over the burial of a pastor in Chhattisgarh’s Chhindawada village ended Monday with the Supreme Court asking his family to bury him in another village where a common graveyard was earmarked for Christians.
The decision was given even though the two-judge bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and S.C. Sharma differed in their opinion over where the pastor—a Hindu Mahara who converted to Christianity—would be buried.
It came on an appeal filed by the pastor’s son who challenged the Chhattisgarh High Court’s suggestion to take the body to another village, considering Chhindawada didn’t have a burial ground for Christians.
Incidentally, the family’s wish of burying the pastor in their agricultural land was challenged by the Hindu Mahara community which said there was no dedicated space for the last rites of Christians in the village.
The pastor and his family belong to the Maharas but practise Christianity. The community suggested the body be taken to Karkapal village which is 25 kilometres away from Chhindawada.
The row landed in the Supreme Court, after the pastor’s family challenged the Chhattisgarh High Court’s suggestion that the body be taken to another village.
SC judges differ
While Justice Nagarathna upheld the family’s right to cremate him in their private agricultural land, Justice Sharma took a divergent view to hold there was no unqualified right to choose a cremation spot.
Justice Sharma opined the gram panchayat was correct in asking the pastor’s family to bury him 20 kilometres outside Chhindawada where the local authority had designated a common space to bury Christian community members living in four neighboring villages.
On the other hand, Justice Nagarathna underscored that by not permitting his family to bury the pastor in the village, the panchayat had violated the constitutional principles of equality before law.
However, in view of the peculiar facts of the case—the pastor’s body has been lying in the mortuary for more than a fortnight now—the two judges departed from the norm of referring the case to the Chief Justice of India so that it could be heard and decided afresh by a third-umpire judge.
Rather, the two unanimously invoked the top court’s extraordinary powers and asked the family to conduct the funeral rights at a burial ground in Karkapal village, as was suggested by the Chhattisgarh government.
Since the matter would not be placed before a third judge, the legal points on which the two judges differed would be open for adjudication in some other case.
“There is no consensus between the members of this bench on the place of resting of the appellant’s father who died on 7 January 2025. We do not wish to refer the matter to a third-judge bench,” the bench ordered. “Having regard to the fact that the body of the appellant’s father is in the mortuary for the last three weeks, bearing in mind the fact that the deceased has been kept in mortuary for the last three weeks and in order to accord an expeditious burial of the deceased, we agreed to issue the following directions in exercise of our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.”
The bench directed local state authorities to ensure that the pastor’s family was provided with all logistical support for the purpose of transferring the body from the mortuary at the medical college situated at Jagdalpur to Karkapal. This is if the family desired so, the court said.
It also directed police protection to the family, while observing that the state should ensure the burial took place at the earliest.
The pastor’s family had moved the Supreme Court last week, insisting that Christians can be buried in the village graveyard, claiming the pastor’s father too was cremated there in the past. However, this plea was opposed by the Chhattisgarh government that said the village had only one burial ground that was divided between the tribals and the Hindu Mahara community. There was none for Christians owing to their miniscule population in the village.
The pastor originally belonged to the Hindu Mahara community and had converted to Christianity. Therefore, the state maintained, his family was not permitted to bury him there. As for his father, the state informed the court, his body was cremated in the village graveyard because he was a Hindu.
State’s stand betrayal of secularism: Justice Nagarathna
In her opinion, Justice Nagarathna lamented that the pastor’s death gave rise to such divisiveness that litigation had to reach the top court.
She allowed the family to bury the pastor in their private agricultural land, after noting the gram panchayat had not earmarked any land to the Christian community under its rules.
The judge’s opinion rejected the state’s contention that the family could conduct the funeral rights in Karpakal, a village that is about 20 to 25 kilometres away from Chhindawada, where an exclusive burial space for Christians exists. This space, the state had contended, served Christians from three more villages.
The judge was of the view that the high court “ought to have appreciated the predicament and difficulty” faced by the pastor’s family and found a solution. According to her the HC’s suggestion, which endorsed the state’s stand, had the effect of displacing a practice prevailing in Chhindawada village, which was also acceptable to the gram panchayat over decades.
There was harmony between all communities of the village until the pastor’s death, the judge noted, as she pulled up the gram panchayat for failing to find an amicable solution.
“Had the village panchayat quelled the aggressive objections and threats to the appellant’s family, the battle would have been resolved at the village itself,” Justice Nagarathna noted, adding the panchayat’s failure to discharge its duty to approve a place for burial for the Mahara community following Christian faith, led to social ostracisation of the pastor and his family.
She criticised the state for taking a stand that the pastor could not be buried in the site meant for the Hindu Mahara community because he was a converted Christian. The judge described the submission as “unfortunate,” a violation of the equality code promised in the Constitution, which prohibits the state from discriminating on the grounds of religion, sex, caste and creed.
Justice Nagarathna found the state’s stand as divisive and discriminatory, one that “betrays their responsibility” to maintain law and order and ensure peace and harmony in the society. The judge wondered about the basis of its declaration and also its attitude.
She said the state’s stand was a “betrayal of the sublime principles of secularism and the glorious traditions of our country which believes in Sarva Dharma Samanwaya or Sarva Dharma Samabhava, which is the essence of secularism”.
Justice Nagarathna said secularism “is a reflection of harmony between all religious faiths leading to common brotherhood and unity of the social fabric in the country” and which makes the “country stronger and more cohesive” given the diversity of the land.
Having regard for the peculiar facts of this case, and particularly since the pastor’s body was in the morgue since 9 January, it was proper he be accorded a dignified burial, she said.
She went on to direct the state and local authorities to demarcate exclusive sites as graveyards for Christian burials in the state in accordance with law to avoid controversy like the present one. The judge gave two months to implement this order, as she set aside the order of the HC.
Graves cannot be arbitrarily constructed: Justice Sharma
Justice Sharma’s divergent opinion delved on the question of whether the fundamental right to conduct last rites as per one’s own specific religion or custom would extend to include the place where the ceremonies are scheduled to take place and whether it would include the right to choose the place of burial in a unilateral manner.
He referred to important local rules under the Chhattisgarh Gram Panchayat and the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Rajya Adhiniyam and said that graves could not be arbitrarily constructed and must be established in designated areas identified by the gram panchayat.
“The rationale behind the same appears to be extremely logical. The designation of an identified area serves a salutary purpose of ensuring a systemised procedure of conducting last rights by paying due reference to the surrounding sensitivities, but also importantly, encompasses a public health angle. The earmarking of designated areas for every community in every village is an evolutionary process that is not perfect and slow moving. However, it seeks to delicately handle aspects of human life and beyond which must receive adequate judicial attention,” Justice Sharma said.
Unlike Justice Nagarathna, he did not exercise the court’s equitable jurisdiction to permit the pastor’s family to bury him in their agricultural land, particularly in light of the fact that a burial ground was merely 20 to 25 kms away from the village.
Justice Sharma accepted that procedures pertaining to last rights are part of fundamental rights protected under the Constitution. However, it would not encompass the unqualified right to choose the place of such a ceremony.
“It’s well settled that rights protected under Article 21 (right to liberty) of the Constitution of India are subject to procedures established by law, which is required to be just, fair and reasonable,” he said.
Even the right to profess, practice and propagate religion under Article 25 of the Constitution is subject to public order, he asserted. So, to claim an absolute right in respect of place of burial under Articles 21 and 25 prima facie appears to be circumspect, the judge said.
He disagreed with Justice Nagarathna’s view that the state had brought up public order argument as a “ruse”.
“The maintenance of public order is paramount and in the larger interest of the society. Accordingly, without commenting on the underlying sensitivities and with a view to provide the deceased with a decent and dignified burial, the following directions (of the HC) appear to be fair and reasonable,” the judge added.
(Edited by Tikli Basu)
Also Read: Tensions simmer in Bastar between Christians & Right-wing outfits as conversion takes centre stage
When age old temples, mosques, and mazars are bulldozed or relocated for expanding highways and cities, this is a non-issue. In cities like Chennai and in other countries in Europe and the US, dead bodies of Christians are cremated due to lack of space in cemeteries. At least this dead body has a place in a cemetery. But the speed with which this issue has reached the Supreme court shows that some powerful vested interests are behind this issue. These interests want to divide the people along religious lines and pit the Christians against probably the rulers in the state or the center.
The Print would never report on the atrocious vandalism and attacks on Ramakrishna Mission school in Meghalaya by Christians. The Print’s north-eastern reporters would not write articles on it and brush it under the carpet as a minor incident – not worth taking note of.
It is such duplicity and hypocrisy which makes many people not subscribe to The Print. Under the guise of “un-hyphenated journalism”, this is just good old-fashioned secular-liberal cabal at work.
The Christian missionaries create trouble wherever they go. The church, as an institution, is very insecure and always finds a way to get into conflict with other religious denominations.
Take the example of Meghalaya. The venerable Ramakrishna Mission was building a school in a village named Mawkynrew near Shillong. Certain anti-social elements from the nearby villages, instigated by the local church leaders, launched an all out attack on the under-construction school resulting in extensive destruction of property. The issue flared up, mobs clashed with police and this resulted in injuries to scores of people and policemen.
The crux of the issue was that the local church was deeply insecure about the Mission constructing a school for the underprivileged rural children.