Supreme Court gives split verdict on burial of tribal Christian man but does not refer issue to larger Bench

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court on Monday gave a split verdict on the rights of a deceased Christian belonging to a Scheduled Tribe (ST) community to be buried in a village burial ground, .Nevertheless the judges on the Bench, Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, eventually passed common directions to settle the case instead of referring the matter to a larger Bench.A dispute had emerged over whether the deceased man could be buried in the common burial ground where his Hindu ancestors were buried, since he had converted to Christianity. The Chhattisgarh government had insisted that the deceased man should be buried in a separate burial ground for Christians which is 20 kilometers away from the village to avoid potential law and order issues.On the other hand, the deceased man's son asserted that his father had the right to be buried in the same land as his ancestors, adding that he should not face such discrimination merely because he converted to Christianity. .The judges on the Bench today found themselves unable to agree at what the ideal solution should be. However, since the deceased man had been lying in the morgue for several days, the matter was not referred to a larger Bench. Instead, directions were issued so that the man is buried 20 kilometers away, as suggested by the State. "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. .In her opinion, Justice Nagarathna had proposed that the deceased man be buried in his family's private agricultural land, despite the State's concerns that existing rules usually do not allow such an option. She opined that the State should ideally provide security so that such a burial can be done."This appellant (deceased man's son) shall be conducting burial in his private agricultural land and shall not take any benefit of such direction. Respondent (State) shall give security so that the burial is done in his private agricultural ground and this is in peculiar facts and circumstances," she suggested.She added that the State must earmark a graveyard for Christians across all States within two months."The State shall earmark graveyard for Christians throughout the states. This shall be done within two months from today," she said.Justice Nagarathna further opined that the refusal to bury the Christian man at the village burial ground was unfortunate, discriminatory and unconstitutional."ASP affidavit says converted Christian cannot be allowed burial there. This is unfortunate and violates Articles 21 and 14 and furthers discrimination on the grounds of religion. State cannot deny equality before law. Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion , sex, caste etc is prohibited under Article 15," she opined.She added that the attitude of the village panchayat (which was against the Christian man's burial at the village grounds) gives rise to hostile discrimination. She also criticised the State for failing to act against such hostile attitudes thereby, "betraying" the principle of secularism."How could ASP Bastar could give such an affidavit and what was the authority? It betrays the sublime principle of secularism. Secularism along with fraternity is a symbol of brotherhood between all faith and essential for the social fabric of our country and duty is to foster fraternity among different sections," her opinion said..How could ASP Bastar could give such an affidavit and what was the authority? It betrays the sublime principle of secularism.Justice BV Nagarathna.Justice Sharma, however, expressed disagreement on these aspects. "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 opined that the case seemed to boil down to whether the right to conduct religious burial ceremonies can be extended to places earmarked for other faiths in a blanket manner.He noted that burial grounds are often earmarked for specific faiths, and that in this case, the space designated for the Christian deceased was 20 kilometers away. He opined that the freedom of religion cannot be stretched to stake a right to be buried in grounds earmarked for another religion. "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. He, therefore, upheld the Chhattisgarh High Court's decision to deny permission to the deceased man's burial in his village grounds. Instead, he asked the State to provide support so that the body can be transported to the burial grounds 20 kilometers away. "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. .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 petitioner then filed an appeal against the same before the Supreme Court..Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves represented the petitioner/ appellant (the deceased man's son), while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the Chhattisgarh government. .[Read Live Coverage].[Read Judgment]