RAMESH BAGHEL v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 1399/2025

DATE: 27/01/2025

BENCH: Justice BV Nagarathna & Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

FACTS:

The petitioner, Ramesh Baghel, a Christian belonging to the Mahra caste—a community recognized as a Scheduled Caste—faced opposition from fellow villagers in Chhindawada, Chhattisgarh, when he attempted to bury his deceased father, Pastor Subhas Baghel, in the village's common graveyard. Historically, this graveyard had been used by the Christian community, and both the petitioner's aunt and grandmother were interred there. However, upon his father's passing on January 7, 2025, villagers objected to the burial, threatening the petitioner and opposing the interment on both the common graveyard and his private land. The situation escalated, leading to police involvement, who then pressured the petitioner to bury his father outside the village, citing potential law and order issues. Consequently, Baghel approached the Chhattisgarh High Court, seeking permission to bury his father in the village and requesting police protection against the villagers' threats.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, referencing a certificate from the village's gram panchayat stating that there was no designated burial ground for Christians in Chhindawada. The court suggested that the petitioner could bury his father in a Christian burial ground located in the nearby village of Karkapal, approximately 20–25 kilometers away. The court reasoned that granting the petitioner's request might cause unrest and disharmony among the public. This decision was met with criticism, as it overlooked the established practice of the Christian community using the common graveyard and failed to address the petitioner's rights under Articles 14, 15(2)(b), and 17 of the Indian Constitution, which pertain to equality before the law, prohibition of discrimination, and the abolition of untouchability, respectively. Subsequently the case was presented before the Supreme Court,

ISSUES:

A key issue was whether the denial of the petitioner’s request to bury his father in the village graveyard violated his fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 15(2)(b) of the Indian Constitution, which guarantee equality before the law and prohibit discrimination based on religion. Another important question was whether this denial constituted a form of untouchability under Article 17, thereby infringing on the petitioner’s right to dignity and equal treatment, even in matters of death. The case also questioned whether the petitioner’s right to freedom of religion, as protected under Article 25, was violated by denying the Christian community access to the graveyard traditionally used by them.

Additionally, the case highlighted concerns about the State's responsibility to maintain law and order and its failure to protect the petitioner’s constitutional rights in the face of opposition from the local community. By succumbing to mob pressure, the authorities raised questions about their role in safeguarding minority rights. Lastly, the case called into question the judiciary's accountability in upholding constitutional principles, as the High Court dismissed the petition on the grounds of potential public unrest, raising concerns about the protection of fundamental rights versus the maintenance of public harmony.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The judges of the bench did not come into consensus and gave a split decision. Justice Satish Chandra Sharma upheld the decision of the High Court of Chattisgarh and disposed of the petition

Justice BV Nagarathna directed that the appellant be allowed to conduct the funeral rites and bury his deceased father at the burial ground located in the village of Karkapal. In addition, the respondent-State and its local authorities were instructed to provide all necessary logistical support for the transfer of the deceased’s body from the mortuary at the Medical College in Jagdalpur to the Christian burial ground in Karkapal, should the appellant wish to proceed with this arrangement. To ensure the safety and smooth execution of the burial, adequate police protection was to be provided to the appellant and his family. Furthermore, the State authorities were required to ensure that the burial of the deceased took place at the earliest possible opportunity, without any hindrance.

Justice Nagarathna reasoned that denying the appellant access to the burial ground was a clear violation of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. What could have been resolved at the village level has been unnecessarily escalated. The stance taken by the respondent (State) suggests that certain communities may be subjected to discrimination, which undermines the fundamental principles of secularism and fraternity. Such an attitude, both at the village level and among higher authorities, goes against the values of unity and equality enshrined in the Constitution. It is the responsibility of all citizens to promote fraternity, as it is through brotherhood and mutual respect that the nation can grow stronger and more cohesive.

Justice Sharma reasoned that according to the Chhattisgarh Panchayat rules, burial is only allowed at designated burial sites. Therefore, an individual cannot claim an unrestricted right to bury a body at a location of their choosing.

ANALYSIS:

The split decision in the case highlights a fundamental clash between constitutional rights and local governance regulations. Justice Satish Chandra Sharma upheld the decision of the Chhattisgarh High Court, which leaned on the Chhattisgarh Panchayat rules that designate specific burial sites for individuals. His reasoning was based on the interpretation that individuals do not have an unrestricted right to bury a body wherever they choose, especially if such actions contradict local regulations. This view underscores the importance of adhering to established norms and guidelines within a particular jurisdiction, aiming to maintain order and consistency in public practices like burials. Justice Sharma’s ruling reflects a more procedural and rule-based approach, emphasizing compliance with local laws over the individual’s personal claims to burial rights.

In contrast, Justice BV Nagarathna’s decision emphasized a broader constitutional interpretation, asserting that denying the appellant access to the burial ground violated the principles of equality, dignity, and non-discrimination guaranteed under Articles 14 and 15 of the Indian Constitution. Her judgment focused on the rights of the individual to be treated equally, regardless of their religious or community background, and condemned the discriminatory practices that could be perpetuated by local authorities. Justice Nagarathna also highlighted the importance of fraternity and secularism, stressing that the State’s failure to intervene and ensure the appellant’s rights could further erode the social fabric of the nation. Her judgment, therefore, was grounded in upholding constitutional values of unity, equality, and the protection of minority rights, which should be safeguarded even in the face of local opposition.