Ramesh Baghel v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others
On January 27, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a split verdict in the case of Ramesh Baghel v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, addressing a contentious burial dispute that highlighted the intersection of religious rights, local customs, and constitutional principles.
Background of the Case
The dispute originated in Chhindawada village, Chhattisgarh, where Ramesh Baghel, a third-generation Christian and member of the New Apostolic Church, sought to bury his father, Pastor Subhas Baghel, who passed away on January 7, 2025, after a prolonged illness. Historically, the village's graveyard had been informally divided to accommodate different communities, including designated areas for tribals, Hindus, and Christians. Notably, several of Baghel's relatives, including his grandfather and aunt, had been buried in the section allocated for Christians without prior objections.
However, upon his father's demise, some villagers aggressively opposed the burial in the village graveyard, asserting that a Christian could not be buried there, whether in the communal graveyard or on private land. Facing threats and escalating tensions, Baghel's family reported the matter to the local police, who, rather than mediating, pressured the family to remove the body from the village. Consequently, the deceased's body was placed in the mortuary of the District Hospital and Medical College in Jagdalpur, where it remained due to the unresolved dispute.
Legal Proceedings
In response to the opposition, Ramesh Baghel filed a writ petition in the Chhattisgarh High Court, seeking permission to conduct his father's last rites in the area traditionally used by Christians in the village graveyard. The High Court, however, declined the request, expressing concerns that granting such relief might cause "unrest and disharmony" among the public. The court noted the availability of a designated Christian burial ground in the nearby village of Karkapal, approximately 20-25 kilometers from Chhindawada, and suggested that the burial be conducted there.
Dissatisfied with this decision, Baghel approached the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court's order and seeking to uphold his family's right to bury his father in their native village, as had been customary for their community members.
Supreme Court's Split Verdict
The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, delivered a split verdict on the matter.
- Justice B.V. Nagarathna's Perspective: Justice Nagarathna emphasized the principles of equality and non-discrimination enshrined in the Indian Constitution. She criticized the actions of the local authorities and villagers, stating that denying the burial of a person solely based on their religious beliefs violated Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution, which guarantee equality before the law and prohibit discrimination on grounds of religion, respectively. She remarked, "Such an attitude on the part of the respondents betrays their responsibility towards all citizens residing in the village and smacks of hostile discrimination and divisiveness." Justice Nagarathna advocated for the burial to take place on the family's private agricultural land in Chhindawada, asserting that the deceased was entitled to a dignified burial in his native village.
- Justice Satish Chandra Sharma's Perspective: Conversely, Justice Sharma focused on procedural propriety and public order. He highlighted the Chhattisgarh Gram Panchayat (Regulating Places for Disposal of Dead Bodies, Carcasses, and Other Offensive Matter) Rules, 1999, which mandate that burials occur in designated areas approved by the Gram Panchayat. He argued that the right to practice one's religion under Article 25 of the Constitution is subject to public order and does not extend to an unqualified choice of burial site, especially when such a choice could disrupt communal harmony. Justice Sharma supported the High Court's suggestion, recommending that the burial be conducted at the designated Christian burial ground in Karkapal to maintain public order and adhere to established regulations.
Final Directive
Given the lack of consensus between the two judges and the urgency of providing a dignified burial, the bench, exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, issued a unified directive:
- Burial Location: The appellant was instructed to conduct the funeral rites and bury his deceased father at the designated Christian burial ground in Karkapal village
- Logistical Support: The State of Chhattisgarh and its local authorities were directed to provide all necessary logistical support to the appellant's family for transporting the body from the mortuary in Jagdalpur to the burial site in Karkapal.
- Security Measures: Adequate police protection was to be provided to ensure that the burial proceeded without any untoward incidents.
- Timely Execution: The authorities were instructed to ensure that the burial took place at the earliest opportunity, considering that the body had been in the mortuary since January 7, 2025.
Implications and Observations
This case underscores the delicate balance between individual religious rights and communal harmony. Justice Nagarathna's opinion highlights the constitutional mandate against discrimination and the importance of secularism, while Justice Sharma's perspective emphasizes adherence to local regulations and the maintenance of public order.
The Supreme Court's directive, while providing an immediate resolution, also reflects the complexities involved in reconciling personal liberties with societal norms. The case serves as a poignant reminder of the need for sensitivity and inclusivity in addressing issues that touch upon deeply held beliefs and traditions.
In conclusion, the Ramesh Baghel v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others case not only resolved a specific burial dispute but also illuminated broader themes of religious freedom, equality, and the role of the judiciary in navigating conflicts arising from India's rich tapestry of cultural and religious diversity.
