New Delhi
Consensus eluded a Supreme Court bench, which gave a split verdict on the issue of place of burial of a pastor — a converted Christian — whose body is lying in a mortuary in Chhattisgarh since January 7. Villagers have objected to his burial in the village graveyard due to the family’s conversion to Christianity.
On January 22, the apex court had reserved its verdict on the pastor’s son Ramesh Baghel’s plea seeking burial of his father in the area specified for Christian burials in his village graveyard. The pastor, who was born in the Mahar caste, died after a prolonged illness.
Ramesh moved SC after the Bastar police maintained that converted Christians could not be buried in the village graveyard. Following this, the Chhattisgarh High Court also expressed concerns over a potential law and order situation if the burial took place in the village and disposed of his plea. In the SC, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta also opposed his plea, warning that such actions could ignite tensions between tribal Hindus and Christians.
In his plea, Ramesh maintained that Chhindwara village had a graveyard which was verbally allotted by the gram panchayat for burial and cremation of bodies. Separate areas were demarcated for burial of tribals, burial or cremation of people belonging to Hindu religion, and for persons belonging to the Christian community.
In the area specified for Christians, the petitioner’s aunt and grandfather were buried. The plea said the petitioner and his family members wanted to hold the pastor’s last rites and bury his mortal remains in the area specified for Christian persons in the graveyard.
“Hearing this, some villagers aggressively objected to it and threatened dire consequences if the petitioner and his family buried the petitioner’s father in this land. They are also not allowing the petitioner’s family to bury the mortal remains in the petitioner’s family privately-owned land,” it said.
According to Ramesh, the villagers said a Christian couldn’t be buried in their village, be it the village graveyard or a private land. “When the villagers turned violent, the petitioner’s family made a report to police following which 30-35 police personnel reached the village. The police also exerted pressure on the family to take the body out of the village,” he said.
The petitioner argued that the family had a right to bury his father in the village, as other family members had been buried there despite their conversion. “I don’t want to go outside the village. I don’t want to be treated like an untouchable just because I converted,” he said.
Lead judge of the bench, Justice BV Nagarathna said the burial of the converted Christian, Subhash Baghel, should be held in the private agricultural land of the family but Justice Satish Chandra Sharma said the burial should only be held at a designated place away from the village in Chhattisgarh.
Delivering her judgment, Justice BV Nagarathna criticised the discriminatory practices of the village panchayat and State authorities. “It is said that death is a great leveller, and we need to remind ourselves of this,” she asserted even as she also condemned the affidavit by Bastar police, which maintained that Christian converts could not be buried in the village, calling it a violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
But Justice Satish Chandra Sharma had a different take. “There is no reason why there should be an unqualified right to burial. Sweeping and illusionary rights can lead to public order disruption. Maintenance of public order is in the larger interest of society,” he stated and maintained that the burial at Karakwal, 20 km away, was a practical resolution.
However, despite their differences, Justices Nagarathna and Sharma directed that the burial be conducted at the designated place in Karkapal village cemetery, which is 20 km away from the native’s Chhindwara village. The bench said it will not refer the matter to a larger bench.
The bench said it is passing the order in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and directed the State government to provide full security so that no untoward incident takes place. The SC had earlier expressed anguish over the son’s need to move court.
The SC, invoked Article 142 and ordered the burial at Karakwal with immediate support for the family. “These directions are issued to allay the sufferings of the family of the deceased,” the bench said.
