SG Tushar Mehta, Colin Gonsalves spar in Supreme Court over burial of tribal Christian man

The hearing before the Supreme Court over the dispute relating to the burial of a Christian man from a Scheduled Tribe (ST) community in the village burial ground saw a heated exchange of words between Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves on Monday..While SG Mehta said that the insistence by the deceased's son (petitioner) to bury the man in the burial ground of his family's native village was an attempt to create unrest between tribal Hindus and tribal Christians, Gonsalves alleged that this was the "beginning of movement to kick Christians out."Mehta was representing the State of Chhattisgarh while Gonsalves was appearing for the petitioner."You just wanted disturbance between tribal Hindus and tribal Christians. This is just beginning of a movement," the SG said."Yes, beginning of movement to kick Christians out ... Now they are trying to create a precedent where they are saying if you convert, you will have to go out of the village ... this is a dangerous one," Gonsalves retorted.A Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma was not impressed by the fact that the body of the man has been in the mortuary for 12 days now.It also took a dim view of the High Court order to deny permission citing possible law and order problems."Why cannot a person be buried where they wanted to? Body is in mortuary? We are sorry to say that a person has to come to Supreme Court for the burial of his father. The High Court, panchayat, etc. are not able to solve the problem. The High Court says there will be law and order problem.. We are pained at this," the Court said.The Court eventually posted the matter for hearing on January 22 after the SG sought time..The dispute stemmed from the denial of permission to a Christian man to bury his deceased father in the burial ground of his family's native village.The petitioner, one Ramesh Bhaghel, moved the Court seeking permission to bury his father in his native and resident village of Chhindawada. According to him, Chhindawada has a graveyard which is informally allocated by the gram panchayat for burial and cremation.His father had converted to Christianity and it was his argument that within the village graveyard, separate areas are designated for the burial or cremation of persons belonging to the tribal, Hindu and Christian communities.Further, the petitioner stated that his other family members had been previously buried in the section designated for Christians in the available graveyard area in Chhindawada.Some villagers had strongly opposed the burial of the petitioner’s father in the designated area and issued threats of severe consequences. They also prohibited the petitioner’s family from using their privately owned land for the burial, asserting that a Christian person cannot be buried anywhere in the village, whether in the village graveyard or on private property.He then approached the Chhattisgarh High Court which dismissed the plea on the ground that there was no separate burial ground designated for the Christian community in the area.The High Court noted that there is a separate burial area for Christians available in a nearby village situated at a distance of 20-25 kilometers away from the petitioner's village and that the deceased could be buried there.The High Court said that the burial of the petitioner's father in a burial ground meant for tribal Hindus could lead to "unrest and disharmony."The appeal against this order came up before the Supreme Court on Monday..Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, appearing for the petitioner, alleged that the reason the burial was not being allowed was because the deceased was a Christian. The SG said that the burial ground was meant for Hindu Scheduled Tribe persons and there is a separate burial ground for Christians about 20 kilometers away. "This is burial ground for the tribals who are not Christians. Though they are not Christians, they bury their dead. When Christians die, just 20 kilometers away, there is a Christian burial ground and they take the dead their and bury them. This ground is a Hindu tribal burial ground," the SG said.The Bench then asked why the petitioner was not being permitted to bury the person on their own land.The SG said that the same is not allowed as per the relevant rules."Once you bury or cremate someone in a private land, the character of land changes. It becomes a sacred place and it also has health issues. That is not permitted.. cremation etc. is not allowed in private lands," he said.Gonsalves said that the father of the deceased was buried in the village burial ground."But they had not converted," the SG said. "Please see the picture of the graveyard.. my father, aunt all has cross on their graves. We have a special place for ourselves in that burial ground," Gonsalves said. The SG said that the State is willing to provide ambulance and accord a respectful burial to the deceased."We will provide ambulance and we will take them 15 kilometers away with all respect and give burial according to Christian rights. They should have respected dead persons dignity," the SG said."This is a village graveyard. They are trying to break away that basic fragment of secularism," Gonsalves contended."Look at the pictures.. it's written Shri Shiv.. Lord Shiva," Mehta pointed out."That's a name (of the buried persons)," Gonsalves replied..Mehta alleged that the petitioner wanted this to be decided on a national level so that it becomes a precedent."I just want to be buried in part of the land where my ancestors and relatives are buried. I don't want to go outside the village.. I don't want your (State's) ambulance. I don't want to be treated like an untouchable just because I converted " Gonsalves said."Everyone has converted. Most Christians are converted. No one is an original Christian here! Why are you getting agitated?" the SG said..The Bench made it clear that the body cannot be kept in the mortuary for long. It also said that petitions such the current one cannot be dismissed by High Courts citing law and order."Writs are being dismissed in the name of law and order. We fear that if we don't decide then there will be two bodies in the mortuary," the Bench remarked."We cannot allow this to become a movement and we cannot allow this to happen. It is not just about this individual death," the SG said.The matter will be heard again on Wednesday, January 22.