Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma has delivered a split verdict on a Christian man's plea to bury his father in his native village or private land in Chhattisgarh.  

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Ramesh Baghel v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors (2025). 
• Justice Nagarathna allowed burial on private land, while Justice Sharma insisted on using the designated burial ground 20-25 km away.  
• Despite their disagreement, the Court directed burial at the designated site, citing public health concerns and the state's duty to provide burial spaces. 

What was the Background of Ramesh Baghel v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors? 

• The case involves a Christian man from Chhattisgarh seeking to bury his father, who was a pastor since 1986-87 and passed away on 7th January, 2025, in their native village Chhindwada. 
• The family has been living in village Chhindwada for generations and belongs to the Mahra community, with the deceased being a third-generation Christian and member of the New Apostolic Church. 
• When the appellant tried to bury his father in the village burial ground or their private agricultural land, the villagers objected and threatened the family with dire consequences. 
• The village Chhindwada has a total population of 6,450, with 6,000 tribal people, 350 Hindu Mahras, and 100 Christian residents. 
• Previously, the appellant's grandfather (2007), aunt (2015), and two distant relatives (2013) who were Christians had been buried in the same village graveyard area that was reportedly designated for Christians. 
• After facing opposition, the appellant was forced to keep his father's body in the mortuary of District Hospital and Medical College, Jagdalpur, and sought help from various authorities including the local police and SDO. 
• The Barahpal Chindwara Gram Panchayat issued a certificate stating that no official Christian graveyard exists within their jurisdiction, though the appellant contests this claiming there was an orally sanctioned area. 
• The State suggested that the body could be buried in village Karkapal, which is 20-25 kilometers away from Chhindwada, where there is a designated Christian burial ground of approximately 2.15 acres serving multiple villages. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• Justice Satish Chandra Sharma: 
  • The fundamental right to conduct last rites cannot extend to claim an unqualified right to choose the specific "place" of burial, as it would stretch constitutional limits beyond their intended scope. 
  • Rights protected under Article 21 are subject to "procedure established by law" which must be just, fair and reasonable, while Article 25's right to religious practice is subject to "public order" and state regulation. 
  • The Chhattisgarh Gram Panchayat Rules mandate that graves must be established only in designated areas identified by the Gram Panchayat, serving both public health concerns and systematic burial procedures. 
  • The State has a duty to provide identified places for last rites to all religious communities within reasonable limits, but this does not extend to allowing burials in private lands when designated burial grounds exist nearby. 
• Justice B.V. Nagarathna:  
  • The appellant should be permitted to conduct funeral rites of his father in his private agricultural land at village Chhindwada, with the caveat that no legal advantage should be taken from this permission. 
  • The State and local authorities must provide adequate security and protection to the appellant's family to carry out the funeral rites. 
  • The State must demarcate exclusive sites as graveyards for burial of Christians throughout the State within two months to avoid similar controversies in the future. 
• Due to the split verdict, by consensus, the final direction allowed burial only at village Karkapal with state support and protection, considering the body had been in the mortuary since 7th January, 2025. 

What are the Legal Provisions Referred? 

• Constitutional Provisions: 
  • Article 21: Right to Life and Personal Liberty. 
  • Article 25: Freedom of Religion  
    • Article 25(1): Right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion. 
    • Article 25(2): State's power to regulate religious practices. 
  • Article 142: Supreme Court's power to do complete justice. 

How Does Article 21 Of the Indian Constitution Ensure the Right to Dignity and Fair Treatment of Deceased Bodies? 

• Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which has been interpreted to extend beyond death to include dignified treatment of deceased bodies. 
• The Supreme Court has ruled that the word "person" in Article 21 includes dead persons in a limited sense, ensuring their right to dignity and fair treatment. 
• The right includes proper disposal of bodies through burial or cremation according to religious customs and traditions. 
• The State has an obligation to ensure dignified treatment of dead bodies and prevent their misuse or disrespect. 
• The right to decent burial is considered a fundamental right, with burial procedures to be conducted according to religious rules. 
• Protection extends to preventing unauthorized exhumation, mutilation, or disrespect to corpses. 
• Section 297 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (IPC) specifically prohibits irreverence to dead bodies and trespassing in burial grounds. 
• The right includes protection against illegal organ trading and unauthorized use of bodies for medical education. 
• During crises like COVID-19, the courts have upheld that the right to dignified burial remains unchanged despite emergency circumstances. 
• The right is interconnected with Article 25, protecting religious and cultural practices related to burial rites. 

What are Landmark Cases? 

• Parmanand Katara v. Union of India (1995) 
  • Established that right to dignity under Article 21 extends to dead bodies. 
  • Mandated respectful treatment of corpses according to tradition and culture. 
  • Required state intervention to prevent misuse of dead bodies for illegal purposes. 
• Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1962) 
  • Expanded the scope of Right to Life to include human dignity. 
  • Established that right goes beyond mere animal existence. 
  • Set foundation for broader interpretation of Article 21. 
• Common Cause v. Union of India,(2018)  
  • Extended right to live with human dignity beyond death. 
  • Established proper death procedures as a constitutional right. 
  • States dignity in death-related matters. 
• Ashray Adhikar Abhiyan v. Union of India, (2002) 
  • Reinforced right to proper burial according to religious customs. 
  • Emphasized preservation of dignity in death. 
  • Established state responsibility in ensuring proper burial rights. 
• Pradeep Gandhi v. State of Maharashtra, (2002)  
  • Addressed COVID-19 burial rights. 
  • Affirmed right to decent burial during crisis. 
  • Established that pandemic doesn't diminish burial rights. 
• Vineet Ruia v. Principal Secretary, MOHFW, West Bengal,(2020)  
  • Confirmed Article 21 applies to both living persons and dead bodies. 
  • Connected burial rights to fundamental rights under Article 25. 
  • Provides cultural and traditional aspects of burial rights. 
• Vikash Chandra Guddu Baba v. UOI & Ors (2008) 
  • Established state responsibility for unclaimed bodies. 
  • Mandated religious conformity in last rites when religion is known. 
  • Set guidelines for handling unidentified deceased persons.