(TOI 28/01/25)
A division bench on Monday delivered a split verdict on the controversy over the burial of a Christian tribal in chattisgardh.one judge termed denial of burial in his village by locals and state authorities’ hostile discrimination on the basis of religion and allowed burial on his private land. while the other judge said that a family could not claim unqualified right to choose the place of burial and held that the last rites must be performed at the place demarcated for the community which is 20-25 KM away from the village. Taking note that the body was lying in a mortuary for the past three weeks and making reference to a larger bench or to a third judge would further delay his last rites. Bench of justices BV Nagaratha and Satish Chandra Sharma directed that the funeral be conducted at the burial ground demarcated for Christians in another village. The bench said it was passing the order bearing in mind judicial stewardship and to alleviate the predicament and suffering of the appellant and his family. The bench passed order on the plea of the son who had approached the court to conduct the last rites in his native village which was not allowed by villagers. Justice Nagaratha allowed his plea and justice Sharma rejected his submissions.
Stating “death was a great leveler justice Nagaratha ruled that this case demonstrated that the death of a resident of a village could also give rise to divisiveness and disapproved the conduct of the panchayat and state authorities for discriminating on the ground of religion and held”. “This is nothing but a violation of Article 14 and article 15(1) of the constitution which speak of equality before the law and the equal protection of the laws.”
Justice Sharma however emphasized that no one could claim to have absolute and unqualified right to conduct last rites at the place of one’s choice and held that there was no need to invoke last rites at the place of ones choice and held that there was no need to invoke article 142 of the constitution to allow the plea of the petitioner. It is well settled that rights protected under article 21 of the constitution are subject to procedure established by law which is required to be just, fair and reasonable. Furthermore, the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion under article 25 is ex facie subject to public order and the sub clause 2 of article 25 enables the state to frame provisions regulating certain activities associated with religious practices.”