Articles
Denial of Burial Touches India’s Conscience
Opinion | Articles | John Dayal | 17-Jun-2026
Amid the constant noise and near normalising of persecution against religious minorities in India, why does the denial of burial to Christians by villagers in Chhattisgarh—and in pockets elsewhere— stir anger, no just in the wider Christian community but also from ordinary Hindus and Judges on the benches of the Supreme Court?
This is not selective outrage of a few, but something profoundly positive, revealing that even in a deeply polarised climate, a basic sense of shared humanity endures. Disrespecting the dead crosses a line that routine violence or social boycott sometimes fails to breach, moving the collective Indian conscience in a manner few other injustices can.
Chhattisgarh has witnessed repeated incidents of burial denial with monitoring groups such as the United Christian Forum (UCF) documenting at least 23 burial-related incidents nationwide in 2025, with the overwhelming majority occurring in Chhattisgarh.
Local reports and testimonies from affected families suggest the numbers are even higher. Law activist Degree Prasad Chauhan of Raipur has documented 147 complaints from families facing similar harassment in recent years and hundreds of disputes in the Bastar region alone.
Families are forced to watch their loved ones’ bodies remain unclaimed in mortuaries for weeks on end. Some face overt pressure to convert to Hinduism to secure a decent burial; in extreme cases, graves have been threatened with or subjected to exhumation.
That this particular form of injustice pierces through the daily clamour of communal tensions is rooted in human psychology and anthropology as across cultures and civilisations, funeral rites rank among humanity’s earliest and most universal behaviours, affirming our shared mortality and the enduring bonds of community and memory. Denying them feels like an attack not merely on one faith but on our common humanity itself.
Routine persecution—assaults on prayer halls, social boycotts, economic ostracism, or threats—often gets normalised in public discourse as “local tensions” or “law and order issues.”
Death is meant to be the great leveller, and when it is weaponised as yet another arena for division and dominance, something fundamental within us rebels.
This reaction transcends community lines, and many Hindus who may hold differing views on issues of conversion or proselytisation still find grave desecration, forced displacement of bodies, or denial of last rites deeply unacceptable.
It taps into a residual cultural consensus—rooted in India’s pluralistic ethos—that the dead deserve respect, irrespective of faith, an instant that is a beacon of hope amid deepening divides.
Indian courts have also consistently safeguarded this instinct through Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, expanding primary concern with the living into a protective mantle posthumously.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that the right to dignity does not evaporate with the cessation of breath, families possess a fundamental right to perform last rites according to their religious beliefs, and the state bears a corresponding duty to facilitate the decent and respectful disposal of bodies.
Even as early as 1995, the Supreme Court held that the right to dignity and fair treatment under Article 21 extends not only to a living person but also to their mortal remains - a corpse must be treated with the same respect and humanity as the living individual.
In 2002, the Court upheld the right of even homeless or unclaimed deceased persons to a decent burial or cremation in accordance with their religious faith.
Courts have clarified that the right to a decent burial forms part of the expanded meaning of “life” under Article 21, encompassing cultural, religious, and emotional dimensions that give meaning to existence.
High Courts, such as of Madras and Allahabad, have echoed these sentiments, stressing that denial of burial or cremation grounds on discriminatory grounds violates equality (Article 14), non-discrimination on religious grounds (Article 15), and freedom of religion (Article 25).
The most poignant recent affirmation came in the January 2025 case of Ramesh Baghel v. State of Chhattisgarh, concerning the denial of burial to a pastor in the Bastar region and the body languished in a mortuary for over three weeks.
The village panchayat resisted burial in the local graveyard, citing “custom” and fears of unrest, despite historical precedent of Christian members of the same tribal Mahra community being interred there.
Justice B.V. Nagarathna delivered a compelling and principled opinion, calling the refusal as “unfortunate, discriminatory and unconstitutional,” clearly violating Articles 14 and 15(1).
The panchayat’s own affidavit admitted that individuals who had “forsworn the tradition of the community or converted to Christianity” were barred from the village graveyard—a blatant admission of hostile discrimination that betrayed the constitutional values of secularism and fraternity enshrined in the Preamble.
More broadly, she ordered the Chhattisgarh government to demarcate exclusive burial sites for Christians across the state within a stipulated timeframe to avert future conflicts.
Her reasoning endures as a luminous affirmation - customary claims, majority discomfort, or panchayat resolutions cannot override fundamental rights to equality, religious freedom, and dignity in death.
Subsequent Supreme Court interventions in 2026, including interim orders staying forcible exhumations of Christian bodies, have built upon this foundation, holding unequivocally that dignity in death is non-negotiable, even as it navigates complex central and local governance challenges.
In the “massive noise” of routine persecution, the burial issue continues to break through. It suggests that India’s moral reflexes are not entirely dulled.
When persecution descends to denying peaceful rest to the dead, it triggers a deeper response—one rooted in shared cultural and constitutional commitments to basic human decency, transcending partisan lines.
The public outrage, the flood of PILs, the Supreme Court’s repeated interventions, and the discomfort voiced even by ordinary citizens from majority communities all point to a positive truth — beneath the polarisation, a moral line persists that still moves India.
Yet hope must translate into action and the Supreme Court’s directives on demarcating burial sites must be implemented urgently and transparently.
Broader reforms are equally pressing.
Christian groups have been demanding reversal of anti-conversion laws, often invoked to justify social ostracism, inclusion of Dalit Christians from Scheduled Caste benefits under the 1950 Presidential Order , and full implementation of constitutional protections, while addressing internal challenges such as casteism within communities.
(The author is a senior Journalist and right activist. Views expressed are personal)
Leave a comment
