Ramesh Baghel vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2025 INSC 109; Civil Appeal No. [not specified]
Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma (Split Verdict)
Background
Ramesh Baghel, a member of the Mahra community in Chhindwada village, Bastar District, Chhattisgarh, sought to bury his father, Subhash Baghel, a Christian pastor, in their native village following his death in January 2025. The family had resided in the village for generations and belonged to a tribal community that had converted to Christianity decades earlier. However, the Gram Panchayat passed a resolution barring burials of Christians in the village graveyard, citing “public order” concerns due to opposition from the predominantly Adivasi tribal residents.
The High Court upheld the Panchayat’s decision, denying Ramesh the right to bury his father in the village, and suggested burial at a designated Christian burial ground in a nearby village, Karkapal, about 20-25 kilometers away.
Issues
Whether Ramesh Baghel had a constitutional right to bury his father in the native village graveyard despite the Gram Panchayat’s prohibition.
Whether the refusal to allow burial in the village graveyard constituted discrimination based on religion and violated Articles 14 (equality), 15 (prohibition of discrimination), 21 (right to life and dignity), and 25 (freedom of religion) of the Indian Constitution.
The balance between individual religious rights and public order concerns.
Supreme Court’s Split Verdict
Justice B.V. Nagarathna’s Opinion:
Justice Nagarathna held that the Gram Panchayat’s refusal to allow burial in the native graveyard amounted to arbitrary discrimination based on religion, violating constitutional guarantees of equality and secularism. She emphasized that the burial ground had historically been used by the Mahra community before conversion, and denying access post-conversion was unconstitutional. She allowed burial on private land within the village, underscoring the right to dignity and religious freedom.
Justice Satish Chandra Sharma’s Dissent:
Justice Sharma dissented, upholding the High Court’s emphasis on “public order” concerns. He held that neither the Gram Panchayat rules nor fundamental rights under Article 25 confer an absolute right to choose the place of burial. He directed that the burial should take place at the designated Christian burial ground in Karkapal, prioritizing community harmony and public health considerations.
Outcome
Due to the split verdict, the operative order preferred Justice Sharma’s view, directing burial at the designated site outside the native village. Ramesh Baghel was compelled to bury his father away from the family’s ancestral village, leading to significant social and emotional distress.
Significance
The case highlights the tensions between religious freedom and community sentiments in tribal areas, exposing systemic discrimination against Christian converts. It underscores challenges faced by minority communities in exercising religious rights, especially burial rites, amidst local opposition. The split verdict reflects judicial caution in balancing individual rights with public order, but also raises concerns about the protection of minority rights and constitutional secularism in India.
RELATED Blog
0 comments