Addition Of Gasifier Crematorium Is Only To Benefit Community: Madras High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Isha Foundation’s Construction Of Crematorium
The Madras High Court was considering a petition whereby the petitioners sought a direction for the removal of the constructions already made in the proposed Isha Foundation- Kalabhairavar Dhagana Mandapam.
While observing that the addition of a gasifier crematorium is only for the benefit of the community, the Madras High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the establishment of a crematorium by the Isha Foundation.
The High Court was considering a petition whereby the petitioners sought a direction for the removal of the constructions already made in the proposed Isha Foundation- Kalabhairavar Dhagana Mandapam in the Ikkarai Poluvampatti Village, Perur Taluk, Coimbatore District. The petition was instituted on the ground that the establishment of crematorium by private respondent violated Rule 7, as it could not be established within a prohibited distance of 90 meters.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G.Arul Murugan held, “All other submissions made are with regard to suitability and administrative consideration of local bodies, with which, we would not interfere, because, addition of a crematorium, that too gasifier crematorium is only to the benefit of the community and cannot be said to be against their interest.”
Addl. Govt. Pleader E. Vijay Anand represented the Respondent.
Arguments
The response from the respondent's side was that this issue stands concluded by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Jagadheeswari v. B.Babu Naidu (2023).
Reasoning
The Bench noted that in Jagadheeswari (Supra) it was observed that both Rules 5 and 7 of the Tamil Nadu Village Panchayat (Provision of Burial and Burning Grounds) Rules 1999 start with a negative clause. Rule 5 prohibits new places for burying or burning the dead without a license obtained from village Panchayat. Rule 7 prohibits burning or burying any corpse, in any place, within 90 meters of the dwelling place or source of drinking water supply. It was further held therein that the place licensed as a burial and burning ground is exempted from the 90 meters restriction. Rule 5(1) does not indicate that the place where a body is buried or burnt will not carry the character of a burial ground or a burning ground. Whoever prefers a new place, whether private or public, to be used for burying or burning the dead, a license from the Panchayat is a pre-requisite.
It was held in Jagadheeswari (Supra) that, except for the place which has already been registered under Rule 4 or a new place where a license is obtained following the procedures contemplated under Rules 5(2) (3) and (4), nobody can be buried or burnt in a place which is neither registered nor granted a license.
The Bench thus held, “ It is, therefore, clear that the argument of petitioner that no permission could be granted within that distance, is no longer available to be pressed into service, as, it is against the dictum of the Full Bench decision in Jagadheeswari (supra).”
Holding that the gasifier crematorium is only to the benefit of the community and cannot be said to be against their interest, the Bench dismissed the Petitions.
Cause Title: Murugammal v. State of Tamil Nadu (Case No.: W.P.Nos.19414, 14353 & 18565 of 2024)
Appearance
Respondent: Addl. Govt. Pleader E. Vijay Anand, Additional Advocate General J.Ravindran, Standing Counsel V.Gunasekar, Senior Counsel R. Parthasarathy, Advocates A.P.Balaji, K.Gowtham Kumar