Barking Up a Wrong Tree: Madras High Court Declines Plea to Restrain 70-Year Burial Usage, Says Burial Sites Must Be Notified

In the matter, deciding a batch of writ petitions arising from a dispute in Erode district, the Bench noted that the parties had proceeded on an erroneous legal premise, remarking that they were “barking up a wrong tree” by relying on the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994. The Court clarified that the area falls under a Town Panchayat governed by the District Municipalities Act, and not the Panchayats Act.

At the same time, the Court issued a strong constitutional warning, observing that denial of access to burial grounds for members of Scheduled Castes would amount to a form of untouchability prohibited under Article 17 of the Constitution of India, and could attract penal provisions under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Justice V. Lakshminarayanan observed, “It is not for this court to decide as to where body must be buried or cremated. If a modern crematoria is available in the Town Panchayat, then it is for the council to issue a notification banning cremation within such municipal limits. This is clear from section 172 (3) of the 1998 Act. Unless and until such a notification is issued, the plea of Ms.Greeta and those who support her cannot be entertained. It is the subjective satisfaction of the council whether it wants to ban cremation in areas other then the modern cremation area. Such a notification has not been passed by the council so far. Hence, this argument deserves to be rejected. Hence it is accordingly rejected”.

“I would also like to recollect under the provision of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act of 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “SC/ST Act”). This Act mandates denying a person from a marginalised community access to the public burial or cremation ground is a criminal offence. It is a form of practicing untouchability, which has been declared as unconstitutional under Article 17 of the Constitution of India. The District Collector has been empowered under the SC/ST Act to give appropriate directions, when the persons belonging to the Scheduled Caste are treated unfairly and in a manner inviting the application of Article 17. The report of the District Collector showing that the graves of the persons belonging to the Scheduled Caste have been levelled. Necessarily he should have invoked the powers vested in him and initiated appropriate action”, the bench further noted.

Advocate Jhansi Greeta appeared for the petitioners and L.S.M. Hasan Fizal, Additional Government Pleader appeared for the respondents.

The case involved competing claims over land officially classified as a cart track, with certain petitioners opposing its use as a burial ground citing access issues and environmental concerns, while others asserted that the land had been used for burial and cremation for over 70 years. The record also revealed allegations that existing graves had been levelled using machinery, raising serious concerns.

A report submitted by the District Collector confirmed that although the land continues to be recorded as a cart track, portions of it have been used as a burial ground for several decades, and that certain burial sites had been disturbed.

While acknowledging such long-standing usage, the Court held that burial and cremation can legally take place only in sites that are registered, licensed, or duly notified under the applicable municipal law. It emphasised that local bodies are under a statutory obligation to ensure proper identification, regulation, and maintenance of such sites.

The Court also underscored that the dignity of the dead is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, expressing concern over the reported disturbance of graves and observing that such acts violate both legal and societal norms. It noted that the authorities ought to have initiated appropriate action against those responsible.

Accordingly, in view of the ongoing process initiated by the authorities for reclassification of the land, the Court declined to interfere by restraining its use at this stage. Instead, it directed the District Collector to ensure demarcation, fencing, and proper maintenance of the burial area, and to take steps to regularise the status of the land in accordance with law, including action against those who had damaged existing graves.

The Court ultimately allowed the plea seeking regulation of the burial ground while dismissing the petitions seeking to prohibit its use, thereby striking a balance between statutory compliance, ground realities, and constitutional protections against discrimination.

Cause Title: K.S. Balakrishnan v. The District Collector W.P.Nos.36402, 37501 & 44377 of 2025

Appearances:

Petitioners: Jhansi Greeta, Advocate.

Respondent: L.S.M. Hasan Fizal, Additional Government Pleader, Arun Anbumani, Advocates.

Click here to read/download the Judgment