In a crucial verdict, the Bombay High Court has ruled that citizens do not possess a fundamental right to be cremated or buried at a particular location. The decision was pronounced by a division bench consisting of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Kamal Khata on March 26, 2024. The court directed the City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO) to remove a crematorium constructed on plots in Sector 9, Ulwe, Navi Mumbai, which were near residential societies, shops, a school, and a playground.
The court observed that CIDCO had already established a fully functional crematorium in Sector 14, approximately 3.5 km away from the disputed site. Given this, the bench held that individuals cannot claim the right to choose where they must be cremated or buried.
"It is the Planning Authorities (in this case, CIDCO) who are responsible for providing crematoriums. A citizen or group of citizens would not have any fundamental right in seeking a particular place for cremation or burial," the bench stated.
Read Also:- Bombay High Court Judgment on Invocation of Section 9 & Section 11 of Arbitration Act
The judgment came in response to petitions filed by two housing societies—Lakhani's Blue Waves Co-operative Housing Society and Ami's Planet Mercury Co-operative Housing Society. The petitioners challenged the construction of the crematorium in their vicinity, arguing that the land was initially reserved for a petrol pump. They claimed that due to the influence of certain individuals, a contractor was appointed, and construction of the crematorium began.
The petitioners contended that the crematorium’s location in the middle of residential complexes and commercial spaces posed serious concerns. They highlighted that its proximity to a school and playground could have psychological effects on children. Additionally, the use of firewood for cremation caused smoke and foul odors, leading to air pollution and impacting the mental and physical well-being of the residents.
The petitioners further argued that the villagers who used the crematorium could instead utilize the alternative facility in Sector 14, which was only 15-20 minutes away.
On the other hand, the villagers contended that the crematorium had been in existence for over 250 years and was therefore not illegal. They pointed out that CIDCO had itself provided funds and issued work orders for the crematorium’s renovation. According to them, shifting the crematorium to another area would cause inconvenience.
They also argued that just because housing societies had developed in the area over time, it was not a valid reason to relocate the crematorium. The villagers emphasized that the crematorium served their community and that forcing them to travel a greater distance was unfair.
Court’s Decision
Despite the villagers' arguments, the bench remained unconvinced. The judges reiterated that CIDCO had already provided a fully functional crematorium nearby, making it unnecessary to retain the one in Sector 9.
"We are unable to agree with the 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. 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," the court stated.
The court also emphasized the concerns raised by the petitioners regarding the crematorium's location near schools, playgrounds, and residential complexes.
"The petitioners' concerns are valid, especially considering the presence of schools, open playgrounds, and several residential societies that are being affected by the fire and smoke," the bench noted.
Read Also:- Legal Awareness and Right to Respond to Police Inquiry Not Anti-National: Bombay High Court
Consequently, the court ordered CIDCO to remove the crematorium from the disputed site.
- For Petitioners: Advocates Ashok Gade, Riya John, Nitin Gangal, and Prapti Karkeja
- For Villagers: Advocate Sachindra Shetye
- For CIDCO: Advocate Sameer Patil
- For the State: Assistant Government Pleader AA Alaspurkar
Case Details
Case Title: Lakhani's Blue Waves Co-operative Housing Society Ltd vs. The Chairman, CIDCO
Case Number: Writ Petition 813 of 2024
