Dispute over burial rights does fall under Public Interest Litigation. (Image is generated using AI)Holding that a dispute between two communities over burial space does not fall under the ambit of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), the Uttarakhand High Court recently dismissed a plea filed by a man seeking burial rights and access to kabristan (burial ground for muslims) in the state’s Bhaniyawala village.Observing that such community-specific disputes must be resolved through civil proceedings, Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta rejected the plea, which alleged that members of the Deobandi community were preventing the Barelvi community from using the kabristan. “The right of burial being claimed by members of a particular community of Muslim as against the other community… would not be a matter falling under Public Interest Litigation…it is open to the petitioner and members of the said community to establish the said right in appropriate civil proceedings or by such other mode as may be advised,” the April 22 order said. Justice Manoj Kumar GuptaMatter can’t fall under PIL: CourtThe court held that a dispute over burial rights between members of different Muslim communities cannot be treated as a Public Interest Litigation.The petitioner and the Barelvi community are free to claim the burial right through proper civil proceedings or any other appropriate legal method, the court said.Fight for burial rightsThe PIL was filed by Mohd. Sahzad, seeking burial rights in a Kabristan in the village of Bhaniyawala for the members of the Barelvi muslim community.It was alleged in the PIL that members of the Deobandi community were using the burial ground and denying permission to members of the Barelvi community to use the kabaristan for burial.Advocate Piyush Garg, representing Sahzad, argued that the Deobandi community was not allowing the Barelvi community to use the burial space, even though the Barelvi community has a larger population in the village as compared to the Deobandi community.Madras High Court intervenes in church cemetery disputeThe Madras High Court, in a 2025 ruling, intervened in a church cemetery dispute, holding that the matter was not merely about property rights, but was touching on the deeply sensitive issue of the “dignity of the dead” and the sanctity of a Christian cemetery maintained by a Parish church.Justice L Victoria Gowri was hearing the plea, filed by a parish member, who alleged that the church officials, in January, demolished the existing graves and tombs in a century-old cemetery, using three JCBs, without the consent of the families of the deceased or the broader church membership.Story continues below this adThe high court noted that the tomb structures of existing graves were demolished without consultation or consent of the concerned families and said that it prima facie attracts the definition of “offering indignity to any human corpse” and “trespass in any place of sepulture”.Responding to the the church office-bearers’s argument that under “canon law and ecclesiastical hierarchy”, the Bishop and Parish priest exercise ownership and control over church properties, including cemeteries, and can “permit demolition of tombs” in the cemetery, the court said that any holder of property, particularly religious property dedicated to public or community use, is a “trustee” subject to constitutional limitations, human rights norms and statutory restrictions.“Describing the Bishop as ‘title holder’ does not mean that he has an absolute right to ‘plough the cemetery like a field’,” the court said.The court observed that the church cemetery is a “sacred trust” held for the benefit of the faithful and for posterity, indicating that it is not a disposable asset in the hands of “administrators”.Story continues below this adNoting that the trial court did not examine the matter on the merits due to the absence of a requisite supporting affidavit, Justice Gowri directed the matter to be remanded to the trial court, observing that the defect was curable and the petitioners should be allowed to file the affidavit before passing any order on the merits.Somya Panwar works with the Legal Desk at The Indian Express, where she covers the various High Courts across the country and the Supreme Court of India. Her writing is driven by a deep interest in how law influences society, particularly in areas of gender, feminism, and women’s rights. She is especially drawn to stories that examine questions of equality, autonomy, and social justice through the lens of the courts. Her work aims to make complex legal developments accessible, contextual, and relevant to everyday readers, with a focus on explaining what court decisions mean beyond legal jargon and how they shape public life. Alongside reporting, she manages the social media presence for Indian Express Legal, where she designs and curates posts using her understanding of digital trends, audience behaviour, and visual communication. Combining legal insight with strategic content design, she works on building engagement and expanding the desk’s digital reach. Somya holds a B.A. LL.B and a Master’s degree in Journalism. Before moving fully into media, she gained experience in litigation and briefly worked in corporate, giving her reporting a strong foundation. ... Read More © IE Online Media Services Pvt LtdTags:Uttarakhand High Court