Bombay High Court: Citizens Do Not Have A Fundamental Right To Seek A Particular Place For Cremation Or Burial; Planning Authorities Are Tasked With This Responsibility
The Bombay High Court refused to interfere with the decision of the Planning authority, which had exercised its lawful power to change the location of the crematorium.
The Bombay High Court held that citizens do not have any fundamental right to seek a particular place for cremation or burial, as Planning Authorities are tasked with providing crematoriums.
The Court refused to interfere with the decision of the CIDCO (Planning authority), which had exercised its “lawful power” to change the location of the crematorium. The Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by the Petitioners seeking directions against CIDCO from granting any approval, sanction, or permission for the construction of a crematorium on a plot of land.
A Division Bench of Justice AS Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata held, “As previously stated, citizens do not have the right to cremate or bury at a specific location. It is the duty of the Authorities to meet the needs of the people. In this instance, CIDCO has already provided a fully functional cremation ground. Given these circumstances, we find that the Petitioners are correct, especially considering the presence of schools, open playgrounds and several societies that are being affected by the fire and smoke.”
Advocate Ashok T. Gade appeared for the Petitioners, while Advocate Sameer Patil represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Petitioners, two co-operative societies, filed the Writ Petition challenging the construction of a crematorium on plots of land that they claimed were designated for a petrol pump in the development plan.
They argued that the crematorium's construction, located near residential societies, commercial shops, and a school, was not authorised.
The villagers, by coming in huge numbers, not only foiled the attempts by the Respondents to demolish the unauthorised crematorium but launched a massive protest and objected to the demolition.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court held, “It is the Planning Authorities (in this case the CIDCO) who are tasked with these responsibilities for providing crematoriums. A citizen or group of citizens would not have any fundamental right in seeking a particular place for cremation or burial.”
“CIDCO – the Planning Authority has provided a fully functional crematorium at plot no 1 sector 14 which is at a distance of about three and half kilometers away from this plot. In this backdrop, we find the request of Mr. Shetye to maintain the crematorium at the present place, quite unusual despite being informed that a functional crematorium is provided in the vicinity,” the Bench remarked.
It further remarked, “We are unable to agree with Mr. Shetye’s request to keep this crematorium as the villagers will have to travel a greater distance to use the new crematorium. This cannot justify the continuation of the current crematorium.”
Consequently, the Court held that “we are not inclined to agree with Mr. Shetye’s request to maintain the current cremation ground, especially since the Development Authority, CIDCO, has already provided a fully functional alternative crematorium.”
Cause Title: Lakhani’s Blue Waves Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Anr. v. The Chairman, CIDCO & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:14641-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates Ashok T. Gade and Riya John
Respondents: Advocate Sameer Patil; AGP A.A. Alaspurkar
