Christian man from Chhattisgarh reaches SC ‘to bury his father’, court delivers split verdict

A Christian man from Chhattisgarh approached the Supreme Court after a dispute erupted in his village regarding the burial of the dead remains of his father. There were two options: to bury the dead body of his father either in the burial ground of their native village, Chindwara or on their private agricultural land. But now, the body will be buried in another village.

Split verdict

The Supreme Court delivered a split verdict on the matter. According to Live Law, Justice BV Nagarathna allowed the appellant to bury his father on his private agricultural land in Chindwara.

However, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma said the burial could be held only at the area designated for Christians, which is at Karkapal village (about 20-25 kilometres away from the appellant's native place).

Final verdict

Despite the disagreement, the Supreme Court bench refrained from referring the dispute to a larger bench. Instead, it chose to pass a consensual direction that the burial be held at the designated place for Christians in the Karkapal village.

The order, as shared by Live Law, stated, “There is no consensus between the members of the bench regarding the resting place of the appellant's father.”

“We do not wish to refer the matter to a third judge bench having regard to the fact that the appellant's father's body is in the mortuary for the last three weeks,” the order read.

The Supreme Court agreed to issue the directions in the exercise of powers under Article 142. It said, “The appellant shall bury his father at the Christian burial ground in village Karkapal. The respondent state and the local authorities shall provide them with all logistical support and give them adequate police protection.”

What is the case exactly?

The man's father, who belonged to the Mahra tribal community, died on January 7, 2025. He wanted to bury his father at the burial ground in their village, saying that all their ancestors were buried there.

The plea stated, “...village Chhindawada has a graveyard orally allotted by the traditional Gram Panchayat for burial/cremation of dead bodies. In this village, there are separate graveyards for Tribals and other Castes (Mahra).”

“The separate areas are earmarked for the burial/cremation of persons belonging to the Hindu religion and for persons belonging to the Christian community in the graveyard of Mahar Caste. In the area specified for Christians, the petitioner's Aunt — & Grandfather — have been buried in the said village graveyard,” the plea stated.

However, the gram panchayat and the villagers objected, saying that the burial ground could be used only for the Hindu tribals and not for Christians, Live Law reported.

Villagers allegedly turned aggressive and threatened with dire consequences if the petitioner carried out the burial in the village graveyard.

When the villagers turned violent, the petitioner's family made a report to the police. However, the police exerted pressure on them to take the body out of the village. As a result of this, the body has been lying in the mortuary since January 7, the report added.

The family then approached the Chhattisgarh High Court. The high court disposed of his petition, asking him to bury the body at the designated place for Christians at Karkapal village.

What happened in HC?

The high court had noted there is no separate burial ground for the Christians in the Chhindawala village, but a separate burial ground is available for them in the village of Karkapal, which is situated at a distance of 20-25 km.

It observed, “Considering the fact that burial ground/graveyard of Christian community is available in nearby area, it will not be proper to grant relief as sought for by petitioner in this writ petition, which may cause unrest and disharmony in the public at large.”

Following this, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

What happened in SC?

Throughout the two hearings, the Supreme Court expressed that “it was pained to hear such a case where the man had to come to the Supreme Court to bury his father.”

The bench stated that it “wants to amicably settle the matter so that a decent burial could take place of the body lying in the mortuary since January 7.”

Justice Nagarathna observed that denying the appellant access to the burial ground violated Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. She said the State's position gives the impression that certain communities can be discriminated against.

“Such an attitude on the part of the village level and the higher levels betrays the glorious principles of secularism and fraternity,” she added.