A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

Ramesh Baghel v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, Civil Appeal No. 1235 of 2025, raises concentrated questions of religious equality, local administrative duty and the scope of rights connected with last rites in particular whether an individual or community has an unfettered right to the place of burial, and what obligations a Gram Panchayat and the State owe when communal tensions impede burial within statutory timelines. The appellant, a third-generation Christian of the New Apostolic Church and son of a pastor who died on 7 January 2025, sought to bury his father in the village graveyard at Chhindwada where his family had been interred for generations; villagers objected and local authorities did not or could not prevent threats and obstruction.

The High Court declined relief and suggested burial at a designated Christian graveyard at Karkapal (20–45 km away). The Supreme Court (Nagarathna, J. majority) set aside the High Court order and permitted burial in the appellant’s private agricultural land at Chhindwada with police protection, while directing State authorities to demarcate Christian graveyards across the State within two months; Satish Chandra Sharma, J. recorded a dissent on remedy and would have directed burial at the Designated Christian Burial Ground at Karkapal with state logistical and security assistance. The majority emphasized breach of duties by the Gram Panchayat under the Chhattisgarh Gram Panchayat (Regulating Places for Disposal of Dead Bodies… ) Rules, 1999, and held that discrimination preventing burial on grounds of conversion/off-tradition violates Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution. The judgment balances Article 21/Article 25 protections for last rites with public-order considerations and affirms State duty to provide identified sites for all faiths.

Keywords: Decent Burial; Article 142; Articles 14 & 15; Article 21; Article 25; Gram Panchayat Rules (1999); Designated Burial Ground; Mahra caste.

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The appeal stems from a writ petition filed after the appellant’s father  a pastor died on 7 January 2025 and the family’s attempt to bury him within their native village of Chhindwada where, the appellant asserted, members of his family and co-religionists had been interred for decades. The Gram Panchayat allegedly refused written recognition of a Christian burial area and villagers aggressively objected to the interment; police presence and Gram Panchayat responses did not secure a peaceful burial, resulting in the body remaining in the district mortuary. The High Court dismissed relief, pointing to statutory rules that require use of approved burial grounds and suggesting the appellant use an identified Christian burial ground at Karkapal some distance away.

The appellant challenged this in the Supreme Court contending discrimination and dereliction of local duty; the State defended reliance on the Rules, warned of potential public-order risk and placed on record a Designated Christian Burial Ground at Karkapal (Khasra No. 9/94, c. 2.15 acres).

The Bench faced two conflicts:

(i) whether the right to conduct last rites includes an absolute right to choose the place of burial and

(ii) what remedial direction best vindicates constitutional guarantees while preserving public order.

The majority found Gram Panchayat failure and discriminatory statements by officials inconsistent with Articles 14 and 15(1) and ordered burial in the appellant’s private land plus statewide demarcation of Christian graveyards; the dissent favoured immediate burial at Karkapal with state facilitation and security.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellant is a third-generation Christian of the New Apostolic Church; his family (the Mahra community) has lived in Chhindwada for generations. The deceased father, a pastor since c. 1986–87, died on 07.01.2025. The family sought burial in the village graveyard in the area traditionally used by Christians; evidence submitted included affidavits, photographs and a hand-drawn map indicating graves of the appellant’s grandfather (2007) and aunt (2015) in the same area. During attempts to bury, villagers objected and issued threats; local police reportedly exhorted the family to take the body out of the village. The Gram Panchayat issued a certificate (dated 09.01.2025) stating there was no established Christian graveyard within its limits.

The body remained in the mortuary at Jagdalpur for weeks. The State placed on record that a Designated Christian Burial Ground existed at Karkapal and that customary arrangements had been made to use that site for several villages; State affidavits invoked the Chhattisgarh Gram Panchayat Rules, 1999 (Rules 3–5, 8) which regulate disposal and require use of places approved by the Panchayat or government records. Affidavits disclosed communal sensitivities: a largely tribal village population (c. 6,000 of 6,450) with only ~100 Christians and historical usage patterns that the State argued rendered Karkapal the appropriate site. The appellant’s affidavits contested the State’s position and asserted established oral practice of local interments in Chhindwada.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Does the right to conduct last rites under Articles 21 and 25 include an absolute, unqualified right to choose the place of burial?
ii. When local authorities or villagers prevent burial in a customary site, does Article 14/15(1) prohibit such discrimination and impose duties on the Gram Panchayat/State to secure burial?
iii. What is the scope of the Gram Panchayat’s obligations under the Chhattisgarh Gram Panchayat Rules, 1999 (Rules 3–5, 8) when a corpse remains unburied due to communal objections?
iv. What is the correct exercise of the Court’s equitable power under Article 142 when urgent burial is impeded and public-order concerns exist?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The appellant’s counsel argued that there was an established practice and oral sanction by the Gram Panchayat permitting Christian burials within a demarcated area of the Chhindwada graveyard, corroborated by affidavits, photographs and a Patwari-prepared sketch; that the High Court erred in deferring to a distant designated site when local custom and family graves existed; that the refusal was discriminatory and harmed dignity in death; and that in alternative the appellant should be allowed burial on his private agricultural land if public hostility persisted.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The State relied on the 1999 Rules requiring disposal in places approved by Gram Panchayat/government and contended Chhindwada had no formally designated Christian graveyard; it highlighted public-order risk and the existence of a Designated Christian Burial Ground at Karkapal intended to serve multiple villages. The State proposed logistical and security assistance to use Karkapal and relied on the need to regulate burial places for health, custom and public-order reasons.

H) JUDGMENT

The Court split. Nagarathna, J. (majority) accepted the appellant’s showing that Christians from the Mahra community had been buried in the Chhindwada graveyard for decades and held that the Gram Panchayat had abdicated its duty under Rules 3–5 to arrange disposal within 24 hours and to designate burial places. The majority condemned official declarations excluding converts from village graveyards as violative of Articles 14 and 15(1) and secular ethos, and observed that such administrative conduct fostered ostracisation.

Given the body had lain in the mortuary for weeks, the majority granted immediate relief: permit burial in the appellant’s private agricultural land at Chhindwada, with state security and an express prohibition on the appellant deriving any legal advantage from the permission; ordered expedited implementation and directed the State to demarcate exclusive Christian graveyards across the State within two months; and set aside the High Court order.

a) Ratio decidendi

The State and its local bodies must not discriminate on religion in matters of burial; Gram Panchayats are statutorily obliged to arrange disposal (Rule 4) and designate places (Rule 5); where administrative failure and hostile conduct obstruct dignity in death, the Court may, pursuant to Article 142, fashion effective relief that secures burial and orders systemic measures to prevent recurrence. The majority treated the right to a dignified burial as protected by Articles 21 and 25 (subject to law and public order) but anchored relief primarily in equality and administrative duty.

b) Obiter / Dissent (Satish C. Sharma, J.)

 The dissent agreed that last-rites fall within Part III protections but cautioned against reading those protections to guarantee an absolute choice of place. It viewed the State’s identification of Karkapal as reasonable and, balancing public-order risks, would have directed burial at Karkapal with immediate state logistical support and short-term security measures, rather than permitting burial in private land which might inflame tensions. The dissent emphasised procedural limits on Article 21 and the public-order caveat to Article 25.

c) Guidelines 

(i) Immediate facilitation of burial (either in private land or Karkapal per majority/dissent);

(ii) State to provide police protection and logistical assistance;

(iii) State/local authorities to demarcate exclusive Christian graveyards across the State within two months in accordance with Rule 5 and Rule 8;

(iv) Courteous, non-discriminatory conduct by officials;

(v) Directions under Article 142 to be executed without delay.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The decision threads constitutional equality and administrative duty into the delicate sphere of death rites. Practically, it clarifies that refusal to permit burial based on conversion/off-tradition can amount to Article 14/15 discrimination and that Gram Panchayats cannot shirk Rule-based duties to arrange disposal within statutory timelines. The majority’s remedy (permission to bury in private land plus a mandate for State demarcation of Christian graveyards) is an equitable, pragmatic attempt to reconcile dignity in death and local sensitivities; the dissent underscores the institutional need to respect public-order limits and statutory frameworks by utilising a designated communal site with state facilitation.

For practitioners, two immediate takeaways:

(a) statutory rules (1999 Rules) are actionable tools to compel Gram Panchayats to act;

(b) courts will deploy Article 142 to secure urgent human dignity while directing systemic administrative fixes (demarcation of burial sites).

The judgment therefore strengthens constitutional nondiscrimination in the gravesite context while signalling judicial willingness to temper remedy with public-order realities.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred
i. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, (2023) 8 SCC 402.
ii. Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, (1986) 3 SCC 615.

b. Important Statutes Referred
i. Constitution of India, Arts. 14, 15, 21, 25, 142.
ii. Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993.
iii. Chhattisgarh Gram Panchayat (Regulating Places for Disposal of Dead Bodies, Carcasses and Other Offensive Matter) Rules, 1999 (notably Rules 3, 4, 5, 8).