Supreme Court found an affidavit filed by the Chhattisgarh government about a “designated” graveyard for Christians “very vague”. File
| Photo Credit: Shashi Shekhar Kashyap
Noting that burials must be held only in the areas designated for each faith, the Supreme Court on Wednesday (January 22, 2025) found an affidavit filed by the Chhattisgarh government about a “designated” graveyard for Christians “very vague” even as it endeavoured to end a stand-off between the State and the family of a senior citizen, who died on January 7, over his burial place.
A Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, while reserving the case for orders, asked the State government to file a fresh affidavit in the meanwhile spelling out essential details like the extent of the designated graveyard, its location and whether it was used, as claimed by authorities, by Christians across four neighbouring villages in Baster district.
During the hearing, Justice Nagarathna voiced urgency, saying the body was in the morgue since January 7, awaiting an immediate resolution to the impasse.
Also Read | Supreme Court urged to protect patients’ right to dignified death, burial
Both judges on the Bench orally remarked that the body must be buried in a graveyard designated exclusively for Christians and rites followed.
“If there is a designated area, you can bury him there… This should be an exclusive Christian graveyard where they will not be disturbed. That is what we want,” Justice Nagarathna observed orally.
The Bench said it did not want anyone to “make a mountain out of a molehill”.
Justice Sharma noted that every diocese usually had a designated area for burial.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for Chhattisgarh, submitted the graveyard was for the exclusive use of Christians across four villages. He said the State was willing to put up a sign board to that extent.
Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, appearing for the family of the man whose body has become the subject of the dispute, said they wanted him buried in their native village of Chhindawada in a specified area where his ancestors have been laid to rest for generations.
“I do not want to go out. My relatives are buried here in my village. I can bury him in the grave of my grandfather. There will be no requirement of any extra land…” Mr. Gonsalves, submitted on behalf of the dead man’s son, Ramesh Baghel.
Mr. Gonsalves said he had no information about the “so-called” designated graveyard referred to by the State government.
“This is the first time they [State] have mentioned such a graveyard. They have not produced anything on record about such a graveyard… This is hostile, patent discrimination to the dead with a future signal to the living… Every tribal convert to Christianity will now be told to bury in this designated graveyard… Denial of burial is an atrocity,” Mr. Gonsalves objected vehemently.
Justice Sharma said the case was not about “denial of burial” but about burial in the designated area. Mr. Mehta said the petition was not just about the rights of one individual but a deliberate attempt to “create a movement”
In his petition, Ramesh Baghel has submitted that his elderly father, Subhas Baghel, was a pastor. He said the family and ancestors have been residing in the Chhindawada village for time immemorial. They have agricultural lands in the village. The son submitted that two generations of the family have been buried in the Christian area of the village graveyard. However, his father’s body was lying in the morgue after “communal elements” among the villagers had “aggressively objected” to its burial in the village graveyard. Eom
Published – January 22, 2025 01:25 pm IST
