Crematorium Is One Place Everybody Needs: Supreme Court Directs Mediation In Isha Foundation Crematorium Dispute

The Supreme Court, today, has referred the controversy surrounding the Isha Foundation crematorium near the residential dwellings in Coimbatore to mediation. 

The Court was hearing a challenge to the order passed by the Madras High Court, which dismissed a petition challenging the establishment of the "Isha Foundation Kalabhairavar Dhagana Mandapam" crematorium in Ikkarai Poluvampatti Village, Coimbatore.

The Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi ordered, "We have heard the Counsels and Senior Counsels on behalf of the parties. On our suggestion, parties are agreeable to explore a possibility of an amicable solution, in terms whereof the Respondent-Foundation can compensate for the purchase a residential house at another place of his choice. We urge the parties to settle their dispute amicably. We earnestly impress upon parties to explore such facility and settle the dispute amicably."

Advocate On Record Prashant Bhushan appeared on behalf of the Petitioner, while Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appeared on behalf of the Respondents.

Both parties expressed an inclination to explore an amicable solution. Consequently, the Supreme Court requested Justice (Retd.) R.V. Raveendran to provide his services as a mediator to facilitate the valuation of the property and the terms of the relocation.

Bhushan submitted, "This is regarding a lot setting up of a crematorium right next to my house, right next to my house...Rule 7 says no person shall bury or burn or cause to be buried or burnt any corpse in any place within 90 meters of a dwelling house or source of drinking water supply other than a place licensed as burial and burning ground...Rule 5 says no new place for burying or burning the dead whether private or public shall be opened, formed, constructed or used unless a license has been obtained from the village panchayat on application...the high court unfortunately has interpreted this to mean that if the panchayat gives a license within 90 meters, in my case it's right next door, it's 10 meters away then rule 7 will not apply, this is their interpretation."

"It's a one proposition which has been a very time-tested proposition that when it comes to local laws and we would generally defer to star decisis...", Justice Bagchi said.

Bhushan replied, "Is it reasonable to say that a new crematorium is opened right next to my house, it's creating a huge nuisance Every day my lord bodies are now being burnt there for the last couple of weeks." 

"In this country, anybody can say I don't need a school, I don't need a hospital but a crematorium is one place everybody needs...", Chief Justice Kant said.

Rohatgi said, "We are Isha Foundation, our total area is 200 acres This is a plot which is absolutely open, eco-friendly, LPG So this chap my lord came and said, you buy my land I bought 5 acres of land, what he had. Now the remaining land, my lord, he got it in his wife's name for landless agriculturalists, therefore that can't be sold otherwise I am willing to buy I have said that in the counter So this is the real reason for moving this petition."

Bhushan said, "The local tribals who reside in this area, their custom does not allow them to burn their dead; they bury them. This is a tribal population. What they are doing is they are bringing these bodies from hospitals from the city, which is 30 km away from Coimbatore city, and they are saying that if you burn it in this Isha crematorium You will attain Moksha."

Chief Justice Kant, "This is the kind of a very pious social service...It is not a religious service. Look at the hygienic condition if the dead bodies remain unattended."

Justice Bagchi noted that in many unplanned cities or historically significant areas like the banks of the Ganges, crematoriums exist "cheek by jowl" with residences.

The petitioners challenged the crematorium's establishment, primarily arguing that it violates Rule 7 of the Tamil Nadu Village Panchayats (Provision of Burial and Burning Grounds) Rules, 1999. They contended it could not be established within the prohibited distance of 90 meters from dwelling houses or water sources.

The High Court had noted the Respondents' argument that this issue is settled by a Full Bench judgment of the same court in Jagadheeswari v. B.Babu Naidu (2023).

Before the High Court, the petitioners sought to quash orders from the Village Panchayat and the District Assistant Director of Panchayats (Rural). They argued the area is highly eco-sensitive, falls under the Hill Area Conservation Authority (HACA), and is a known elephant habitat. They prayed for a directive to ensure no human corpses from outside Perur Taluk are brought to the facility.

The High Court had ordered, "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)...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."

The Supreme Court urged the Isha Foundation to compensate the petitioner sufficiently to allow him to purchase a residential property at a different location of his choice.

Accordingly, the matter is listed for a further date.

Cause Title: S. N. Subramanian v. The District Collector Cum Inspector and Ors. [SLP(C) No. 5840/2026]