Home > Recent Judgements > No Absolute Right To Choose Place Of Burial; State Has Duty To Provide All Religious Communities Places For Last Rites
Jan 28, 2025
INTRODUCTION
In the case between Ramesh Baghel vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others, the right to dignified burial or cremation has deep religious and cultural undertones. However, recent debates in law and ethics point to the fact that the right of choosing a site for burial is not absolute and is weighed on the scales with the state’s obligation to furnish adequate burial grounds to all religious groups. In most jurisdictions, land-use regulations, public health issues, and the policies of the state prevail. Courts across the globe have decided that even though an individual or community may have its preferences regarding burial place, such wishes cannot supersede zoning laws, environmental statutes, or even the overall needs of society. For instance, legal cases happen when families want to enthrone their beloved ones in private or disputed lands, with municipal regulations restricting such actions. The courts have held that religious and cultural sentiments must be respected but cannot be allowed to override broader societal frameworks governing land use and public order.
ISSUES
- Can the state deny a family the right to bury their deceased relative at an ancestral graveyard due to law-and-order concerns?
- Is the right to choose a burial place absolute, or can it be restricted by state regulations?
- What are the rights and obligations of the state, both in terms of law and ethics, to provide burial spaces for various religious communities?
- How does the state balance the right to dignified burial with the cause of public order and security?
- What are the parameters by which a body’s release could lead to law-and-order problems?
JUDGMENT
Even recognizing the right of a decent burial as a constitutional right, this right is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interests of public order, morality, or health. In this particular case, the authorities complained that the return of the body would create a law & order problem. To these fears, the Court observed that apprehensions must find tangible material content and not a mere surmising. The court ordered the authorities to evaluate the possibility of handing over the body of the deceased to the family for burial in their ancestral graveyard. If the authorities found that handing over the body would disturb public order, they were ordered to permit the family to perform the last rites at the existing burial site in the presence of close family members, with religious practices being followed. This judgment highlights the judiciary’s role in balancing individual rights with public interest, which brings out the responsibility of the state to respect religious practices regarding burial, even as it weighs public order and safety.
OBSERVATION
In its ruling, the court indicated that it is a state’s responsibility to ensure that burial or cremation facilities are accessible to all communities. Indeed, this right is based on the right to life, which includes the right to a decent burial or cremation. The court quoted a judgment of the Madras High Court, which held, “The right to life also includes the right to a decent burial or cremation. It follows that the State is clearly under an obligation to ensure that members of all communities are provided access to burial/cremation facilities. The court further held that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution extended to the dead, ensuring they were treated with respect and dignity. This included the right to a decent burial according to the religious beliefs of the deceased. The court made references to a case, which cited that the body of a dead individual should be allowed to have an appropriate decent burial as a fundamental right and also as per religious practices under the state’s duty of care.
For more information or queries, please email us at
[email protected]
