"We're pained": Supreme Court expresses displeasure over denial of burial rights to Christian Tribal

The dispute arose when the petitioner, Ramesh Bhaghel, sought to bury his father in the burial ground of their native village, Chhindawada, where other family members had been interred in the section allocated for Christians. However, some villagers opposed the burial, citing that the deceased was a Christian and issued threats, prohibiting the family from using even their private land for the burial.

The petitioner approached the Chhattisgarh High Court, which dismissed the plea, noting that there was no separate burial ground for Christians in Chhindawada. The High Court suggested that the deceased could be buried in a Christian burial ground located 20–25 kilometres away, citing unrest and disharmony as reasons to deny burial in the village.

In the Supreme Court, SG Mehta argued that the burial ground in Chhindawada was designated for Hindu Scheduled Tribe individuals and not for Christians. He added that burying someone on private land was also not permitted under the rules, as it alters the character of the land. Mehta offered state assistance, including an ambulance, to transport the body for burial at the nearby Christian cemetery.

Gonsalves, however, emphasized that the deceased’s other family members, who were Christians, had been buried in the same village graveyard in a section allocated for Christians. “I just want my father to be buried where my ancestors and relatives are buried. I don’t want your ambulance or to be treated like an untouchable just because of conversion,” he asserted.

The Bench expressed disappointment at the lack of resolution by the High Court and local authorities, stating, “Writs cannot be dismissed citing law and order. If this is not resolved, we fear there could be more than one body in the mortuary.”

The matter has been listed for further hearing on Wednesday, January 22, with the Court emphasizing that the body cannot remain in the mortuary indefinitely. The Bench also acknowledged the broader implications of the case, cautioning against allowing the issue to escalate into a larger movement or precedent.