Church Control Over Cemeteries Not Absolute, Rules Madras High Court

Chennai, Dec 23, 2025: Rejecting assertions of absolute ecclesiastical authority over burial grounds, the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) ruled that church authorities hold cemeteries in a fiduciary capacity and cannot interfere with existing graves in disregard of constitutional boundaries and human dignity.

“Describing the Bishop as ‘title holder’ does not mean that he has an absolute right to ‘plough the cemetery like a field’. 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,” the bench of Justice L. Victoria Gowri said.

The court made these observations while overturning an order of a judicial magistrate in Nagercoil that had rejected, on technical grounds, a petition seeking a criminal investigation into the alleged demolition of graves at a century-old Christian cemetery in Punnai Nagar, Nagercoil.

Justice Gowri underlined that ownership or administrative control of church property does not confer unrestricted authority to disturb existing graves without due process or the consent of affected families.

The matter arose from allegations by a parishioner of Lurthannai Church that on January 7 and 8, 2025, church office-bearers entered the parish cemetery using JCB machines and demolished tombs and grave structures. The petitioner stated that the cemetery, in use for over 100 years, is the only burial ground for parish members and their families, who pay fees for grave space, and alleged that the demolition occurred without consultation or consent.

Following the incident, the petitioner filed a police complaint, which was later closed as “action dropped.” A status quo order was subsequently issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer amid factional disputes within the parish. As no FIR was registered, the petitioner approached the judicial magistrate under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, seeking a direction for investigation. The magistrate dismissed the petition solely on the ground that it was not supported by an affidavit.

Allowing the criminal revision, the high court held that the magistrate had erred in rejecting the plea at the threshold. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in S.N. Vijayalakshmi & Others v. State of Karnataka & Another, the court reiterated that the absence of an affidavit is a curable defect and that courts must provide an opportunity to rectify such shortcomings before passing substantive orders.

Beyond the procedural aspect, the court examined whether the allegations disclosed cognisable offences. It noted that the respondents themselves admitted to demolishing tomb superstructures, though they contended that the action was authorised by a general body resolution and did not involve exhumation of bodies. At the revision stage, the court observed, it was not required to adjudicate on the validity of such resolutions or internal disputes within the church.

The court held that, on a prima facie assessment, the allegations attracted Section 301 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which penalises trespass and indignity at places of sepulture, along with provisions of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act. It rejected the contention that such disputes should be confined to civil or revenue remedies.

In its strongest observations, the court clarified that religious cemeteries cannot be treated as private property of bishops or parish priests. Property dedicated to religious and community purposes, it said, is held in trust for the benefit of the faithful. Any significant alteration to such property, particularly where identifiable graves exist, must adhere to constitutional guarantees, statutory protections, and principles of human dignity.

“The Bishop or Parish Priest, at best, is a trustee or custodian; such status does not clothe them with absolute power to plough, demolish or repurpose cemeteries at will, especially where graves of identified families already exist,” Justice Gowri observed.

The court also criticised the police for reducing allegations of grave desecration to an administrative dispute. It held that status quo orders issued by revenue authorities cannot replace the statutory duty of the police to investigate cognisable offences under criminal law.

Setting aside the magistrate’s order, the high court remanded the matter for fresh consideration, directing that the petitioner be permitted to file the required affidavit. It instructed the magistrate to obtain reports from the police and revenue authorities and thereafter decide the petition on merits, keeping in mind the court’s findings on the trust-based and sacred nature of cemeteries.

The court clarified that its observations were confined to the revision proceedings and would not affect any subsequent investigation or trial.

Courtesy: Lawbeat