New Delhi: A division bench of the Supreme Court on Monday (January 27), while pronouncing a split verdict on a plea of a Chhattisgarh man seeking to bury his father at his native village graveyard, where he was not allowed to bury as it was earmarked for people belonging to other faith, or in his native agricultural land in the village, directed for earliest burial of petitioner’s father, a pastor, in a Christian graveyard about 20 kilometers away from native village at Karkanal.
A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharama disposed of a plea filed by Ramesh Baghel, belonging to the Mahra caste, who challenged an order of the Chhattisgarh High Court disposing of his petition seeking burial of his father in the area specified for Christian persons in the village graveyard.
What did Justice Nagarathna say?
Justice Nagarathna, while allowing the petitioner to bury his father at his native agricultural land, said that the declaration that converted persons cannot be buried is nothing but a violation of equality before law and what could have been solved amicably has given a different tint by the respondent authorities and it gives an impression that certain sections could be discriminated and such an attitude at the higher levels betrays the principles of secularism.
“It is said that death is a great leveller. In the instant case, Gram Panchayat has categorically stated that no place has been marked for Christian and in the absence of such marking, the alternative plea raised by the applicant to utilise his private land is reasonable,” Justice Nagarathna said.
What did Justice Sharma say?
Justice Sharama, however, said that burial could be held only at the area which is designated for Christians, saying he was unable to appropriate the jurisdiction of Article 142 of the Constitution to permit appellant to bury his father in private land especially when an area is designated 20-30 km away and the appellant and has family should be given a burial site in the place designated for Christian burial grounds situated in village Karkapal with all logistic support.
The bench further said that since there was no consensus by the members of the bench, it did not wish to refer the matter to three-judge bench keeping in mind the body is lying and it is accorded decent burial and directed the appellant to conduct burial of his father at Karkanal at the earliest.
Bench did not refer the matter to third judge bench
“There is no consensus between the members of this 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 body of appellant’s father is in the mortuary for the last three weeks. Bearing in mind the fact that the deceased has been kept in the mortuary for the last three weeks, and in order to accord to a dignified and expeditious burial of the deceased, we agree to issue the following directions in the exercise of powers under Article 142, the bench said while directing the petitioner to bury his father at the Christian burial ground about 20 kilometers away from native village.
