Supreme Court Directs Burial At Designated Christian Ground; Orders Transfer Support and Protection

A two-judge Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma heard an appeal by a son challenging a Chhattisgarh High Court order that refused to permit burial of his pastor‑father within their native village and suggested burial in a nearby village. The core issue concerned the right to bury the deceased in the village graveyard allegedly used for members of the family’s Mahra community who followed Christianity, and competing claims about whether any Christian burial ground was formally recognised within the Gram Panchayat limits.

The Court disposed of the appeal and issued directions to secure an early, dignified burial while addressing law and order concerns. The Bench recorded differing opinions: Justice Nagarathna set aside the High Court order and, citing equality and non‑discrimination, allowed burial in the appellant’s private agricultural land and directed the State to demarcate exclusive graveyards for Christians within two months; Justice Sharma took the view that statutory rules required use of an approved burial ground and directed burial at the designated Christian graveyard in village Karkapal. By consensual operative directions the Court directed that the appellant may bury his father at the Christian burial ground at Karkapal, and that the State would provide logistical assistance to transfer the body from the Jagdalpur mortuary and adequate police protection to ensure the rites took place at the earliest. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “This declaration by the respondents is unfortunate. To my mind, this is nothing but a violation of Article 14 and Article 15(1) of the Constitution of India which speak of equality before the law and the equal protection of the laws as well as places a strict prohibition of discrimination on the ground of religion, respectively.”

Background The dispute arose after the appellant’s father, a long‑time pastor and third‑generation Christian of the New Apostolic Church, died on 7 January 2025. The family said they sought to bury him in the area of the village graveyard used by Christian members of the Mahra community, where the appellant’s grandfather and aunt had earlier been interred. Villagers objected and allegedly threatened the family; the Gram Panchayat issued a certificate stating that “till date there is no graveyard of Christian community at any place within the limits” of the Panchayat. The appellant filed a writ petition in the Chhattisgarh High Court seeking a direction to allow burial in the native village and police protection; the High Court refused relief and noted the existence of a designated Christian burial ground in nearby Karkapal, expressing concern about “unrest and disharmony” if burial were ordered in the native village.

The State filed affidavits pleading that the village had customary demarcations, that Christians in the area customarily used a designated burial ground at Karkapal (said to measure about 1.96–2.15 acres and serving four villages), and offered to provide an ambulance and security. The appellant placed on record affidavits, photographs and a hand‑drawn Patwari sketch asserting decades‑long Christian burials in a portion of Khasra No.725/136 in Chhindwada. The Supreme Court considered the statutory rules (Chhattisgarh Gram Panchayat Rules, 1999) requiring disposal within 24 hours and authorising Gram Panchayats to approve burial sites, and noted competing concerns of constitutional equality, religious practice and public order.

Final result: the appeal was disposed. By the Court’s operative directions the appellant was to bury his father at the designated Christian burial ground at village Karkapal; the State was directed to provide logistical support to transfer the body from the Jagdalpur mortuary and to ensure adequate police protection so the burial occurred at the earliest.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 109 Case Title: Ramesh Baghel v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Colin Gonsalves, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General of India; Advocate General, Chhattisgarh (appeared)