The Supreme Court expressed its dissatisfaction with the Chhattisgarh High Court’s dismissal of a Christian man’s plea to bury his deceased father in their native village.
The court, comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, lamented that the body had been lying in a mortuary for 12 days without resolution from either the state authorities or the high court.
The court voiced its concern that a man had to approach the Supreme Court to seek permission to bury his father. “What has been the position all these years regarding such burials in the village?” Justice Nagarathna asked, highlighting the absurdity of the situation.
The bench further questioned whether any resolution had been found to address the issue of the body lying in the mortuary since January 7.
The case revolves around Ramesh Baghel, who had challenged the Chhattisgarh High Court’s decision that denied him permission to bury his father in the family’s village, as per their religious customs. The High Court had cited objections from villagers, fearing that allowing Baghel to bury his father in the village’s common burial area could lead to law and order issues. The High Court had also suggested that a designated burial ground for Christians, located 20-25 km away, could be used instead.
When the case was brought before the Supreme Court, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing Chhattisgarh, argued that the burial ground in question was reserved for the Hindu tribal community, not for Christians. The Court asked why the petitioner could not bury his father on his private land, as requested. Mehta responded that such a burial was prohibited by law, citing health concerns and the transformation of land into a sacred site after a burial.
Justice Nagarathna disagreed with Mehta’s argument. “By the third day after cremation, nothing remains. Burial in one’s land is permitted,” she stated. Mehta, however, expressed concern that the petitioner’s case was not just about one individual, but could set a precedent for others.
The state argued that all Christians from the petitioner’s village typically buried their dead 20 km away, in the designated burial ground. Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, representing the petitioner, countered by presenting photographs of the graves of other family members, which had crosses—Christian symbols—on them. This evidence showed that previous burials had occurred in the village’s common burial area.
A heated exchange ensued between Mehta and Gonsalves. The court, after considering the arguments, scheduled the matter for hearing again on Wednesday, following Mehta’s request to file a better counter-reply to the petitioner’s plea.
The case raises significant questions about religious practices, secularism, and the rights of individuals to bury their loved ones according to their traditions.
Read More: Father Of Indian Student Who Was Shot Dead Urges US To Return Their Son’s Mortal Remains
