SUPREME COURT URGES ISHA FOUNDATION TO PURSUE AMICABLE SETTLEMENT IN COIMBATORE CREMATORIUM DISPUTE:

The Supreme Court of India on Thursday encouraged the Isha Foundation to examine the possibility of resolving a land-use dispute amicably concerning the establishment of its Kayantha Sthanam (crematorium) on the outskirts of Coimbatore. The matter was heard by a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi, in a petition filed by a local resident who objected to the crematorium being constructed adjacent to his residence.

The petitioner challenged the legality of the crematorium on the ground that it violated local rules governing burial and cremation grounds. Represented by Prashant Bhushan, the petitioner argued that the applicable regulations prohibit the establishment of a crematorium or burial ground near residential dwellings or water bodies unless a valid licence is granted by the Gram Panchayat. It was submitted that the High Court, in the impugned order, had interpreted the rules to mean that once a licence is granted and a distance of 90 metres is maintained, the prohibition would not apply. However, according to the petitioner, the factual position was that his house was situated merely 10 metres from the crematorium, causing serious inconvenience and disturbance.

The petitioner further contended that the crematorium had become operational in recent weeks and that bodies were being cremated on a daily basis, creating what he described as a significant nuisance. He also highlighted the cultural context of the area, stating that it was a tribal region where burial, rather than cremation, was traditionally practised. According to him, the bodies brought for cremation were not from the immediate locality but were transported from the main city area of Coimbatore, nearly 30 kilometres away.

While acknowledging these concerns, the Bench emphasised the need to consider the broader public interest. The Chief Justice observed that the Foundation was engaged in social work and that the existence of such a facility ensured that dead bodies were not left unattended. On behalf of the Foundation, Mukul Rohatgi submitted that the petitioner had previously sold a portion of his land to the Foundation and had raised objections only thereafter. Although it was conceded that the land had indeed been sold, it was maintained that the sale was not for the purpose of constructing a crematorium.

In an effort to find a practical and humane solution, the Bench suggested that the parties explore the option of compensating the petitioner and facilitating his relocation to a more suitable location. The Chief Justice expressed the view that the Foundation could assist the petitioner in securing better living conditions by offering fair compensation for his existing house. Justice Bagchi, in a contextual observation, noted that in several cities such as Varanasi and Kolkata, cremation grounds and residential houses often exist in close proximity, whereas urban planning in Delhi reflects a more structured approach.

Ultimately, the Court recorded that, acting on its suggestion, both parties had agreed to explore an amicable settlement. It was noted that the Foundation would consider offering a fair and reasonable market price for the petitioner’s residential property to enable him to relocate to a place of his choice, and the Court strongly urged both sides to pursue this course to bring the dispute to a consensual resolution.