Madras High Court orders exhumation of bodies buried in church cemetery after finding license issued in haste

The Madras High Court recently ordered the exhumation of bodies buried at a private plot attached to a Christian church after finding that the burial license was issued in undue haste and in violation of certain legal requirements [Stellar Developer v. The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation and ors].Justice N Mala ordered the plot's landowner, one S Albert Kings Bell (part of a CSI Church), to either ensure the exhumation is done himself or to bear costs for the State authorities to exhume the bodies. "The 5th respondent (S Albert Kings Bell/ Church's representative) shall exhume the bodies, failing which the respondents 1 and 2 (Greater Chennai Corporation and its Deputy Director of Health) with aid of the 4 th respondent (Police) shall conduct the exhumation and bury the bodies in designated burial grounds, however, if the official respondents conduct the exhumation and burial, the 5 th respondent shall bear the costs. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order," the November 3 ruling said..The Court passed the order after a developer of a nearby residential housing project filed a petition challenging the grant of a burial license in respect of the S Albert Kings Bell's plot, which lay near the housing project. The petitioner, Stellar Developer, argued that burial activities had started on the plot even before the licence was given in February 2024. The Court noted that the case involved two competing interests - the preservation of the living environment of the housing project's residents and the dignified burial of the dead."In a context where a land itself is scarce, this Court is called upon to reconcile these conflicting claims, mindful that the guarantee of dignity under Article 21 extends beyond life," Justice Mala remarked. .The landowner of the site in focus admitted that burials had begun on the plot soon after a no-objection certificate had been given by the Tashiladr concerned in February 2021. The landowner further told the Court that the plot had been purchased in 2018 for the Church of South India Trust Association specifically to set up a burial ground since there was no space left in the church's existing burial grounds. The burials were halted after the High Court passed an interim order restraining the same in December 2024. In its final ruling, the Court has now not only set aside the burial licence given in favour of the church's representatives in 2024 but also ordered the exhumation of bodies already buried at the site. Justice Mala also cited the High Court judgment in Jagadheeshwari & Ors v B. Babu Naidu & ors to reiterate that there can be no burial of the dead in any place other than designated sites. .In the present case, the Court observed that the grant of the burial licence went against the Tamil Nadu Combined Development Building Rules, 2019 (TNCDBR), which restrict the number of burial plots permitted in each sub-division of an area. The Court also found that the Greater Chennai Corporation (GCC) had granted the burial licence with undue haste, possibly to help the church bypass certain rules proposed to be introduced on such matters under the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998..The Court further dismissed the church's objection that the petitioner was not entitled to file the present case since it was only a land developer, not a landowner."The existence of the burial ground adjacent to the petitioner's project will impact his business ... It cannot be said that the petitioner is neither aggrieved nor has the locus standi to file the writ petition," the Court said.The Court, however, added that the church's representatives can apply for a new burial licence in future. "The 5th respondent is at liberty to file fresh application after the approval of the Rules by the Government. On such application being made, the 1 st respondent shall consider the same, strictly in accordance with the statutory provisions, Rules and guidelines issued," the Court said. .Advocate G Revathy, briefed by Mothilal and Goda Advocates appeared for the petitioner-developer. Additional Advocate General Ramanlal, assisted by Standing Counsel S Vanitha Joice Rani, appeared for the GCC and its Deputy Director of Public Health.Standing counsel K Mageswari appeared for the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority.Government Advocate (Criminal Side) J Subbiah appeared for the Police. Senior Advocate P Wilson, instructed by Advocate Dineshkumar, represented S Albert Kings Bell..[Read Judgment]