Author: Kavana R from St Joseph’s college of law

ABSTRACT

Burial grounds are an indispensable component of urban civic infrastructure, embodying the intersection of public health, religious freedom, cultural heritage, and constitutional rights. In a rapidly urbanising metropolis such as Bengaluru, the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) bears the primary statutory and administrative responsibility for the management, maintenance, and regulation of burial and cremation grounds across the city’s sprawling jurisdiction. The exponential growth of Bengaluru’s population—currently estimated at over thirteen million—has placed unprecedented pressure on the limited land reserved for interment purposes, exposing a growing tension between urban development imperatives and the dignified disposal of the dead.

This paper undertakes a comprehensive legal and policy analysis of BBMP’s role in managing burial grounds, examining the constitutional framework, statutory provisions, municipal bye-laws, and administrative mechanisms governing such spaces. It traces the historical evolution of burial management from colonial-era municipal legislation through post-independence statutory reforms to the present regime under the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 and the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976. The paper also situates these domestic frameworks within relevant international human rights standards concerning the right to dignified burial, freedom of religion, and the right to life.

Through a survey of judicial decisions from the Supreme Court of India, the High Court of Karnataka, and comparative international jurisprudence, this paper identifies systemic failures in land allocation, equitable access across religious and social communities, maintenance of burial infrastructure, and regulatory oversight by BBMP. The analysis reveals that marginalised communities—particularly Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, religious minorities, and the urban poor—continue to face structural discrimination in access to burial facilities.

The paper concludes with concrete suggestions for legislative amendment, institutional reform, and policy intervention to enable BBMP to discharge its burial-ground management obligations in a manner consistent with constitutional values of equality, dignity, and secularism.

Keywords: BBMP, burial grounds, urban local bodies, municipal law, Karnataka, right to dignity, religious freedom, urban governance, cemeteries, cremation grounds.

I. INTRODUCTION

The management of burial and cremation grounds is among the oldest and most culturally sensitive responsibilities entrusted to urban local bodies. Across civilisations and legal systems, the disposal of the dead has been treated not merely as a public health matter but as a profound expression of a community’s religious beliefs, social customs, and collective identity. In India, where religious and cultural pluralism is constitutionally guaranteed, the question of who manages burial grounds, how equitably they are distributed, and how effectively they are maintained assumes exceptional legal and political significance.

Bengaluru, Karnataka’s capital and India’s technology hub, has grown from a garrison town into a megalopolis of staggering demographic and geographic scale. The Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike—India’s largest municipal corporation by area—administers a jurisdiction of approximately 800 square kilometres and serves a population that includes Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, and numerous scheduled communities with distinct burial and cremation traditions. The BBMP is legally mandated to provide, maintain, and regulate burial grounds for all these communities without discrimination.

Yet the empirical and legal reality belies this mandate. A 2019 survey by the Karnataka State Human Rights Commission documented a chronic shortage of burial plots in low-income and peripheral wards, dilapidated infrastructure in existing cemeteries, and a near-total absence of maintenance budgets for minority and Dalit burial grounds.¹ The Karnataka High Court, in a series of public interest litigations, has repeatedly expressed concern over BBMP’s failure to acquire adequate land for burial purposes and to prevent encroachment upon existing burial grounds.²

This paper is animated by three central research questions: First, what is the legal framework—constitutional, statutory, and regulatory—governing BBMP’s management of burial grounds? Second, how have courts in India and internationally adjudicated disputes concerning burial-ground rights, and what principles emerge from such jurisprudence? Third, what structural and legislative reforms are necessary to make BBMP’s burial-ground management equitable, efficient, and constitutionally compliant?

The paper proceeds in six parts. Part II traces the historical background of burial-ground legislation in India, from colonial municipal enactments to the present statutory regime. Part III surveys the domestic and international legal framework applicable to BBMP’s burial-ground functions. Part IV examines significant judicial decisions in India and internationally. Part V analyses the implications and impact of the prevailing regulatory architecture. Part VI offers suggestions for reform.

II. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND LEGISLATIVE EVOLUTION

A. Colonial Foundations

The governance of burial and cremation grounds in India was first systematically addressed by colonial municipal legislation in the nineteenth century. The Bengal Municipal Act, 1884, the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, and the Mysore City Municipal Act, 1933 each vested municipal authorities with the power to establish, regulate, and maintain public burial grounds and cremation ghats. These enactments drew upon English public health law, particularly the Burial Acts of 1852 and 1853, which had sought to rationalise the management of overcrowded urban cemeteries in Victorian England following cholera outbreaks.³

In colonial Mysore, the Mysore City Municipalities Act, 1906 empowered municipal councils to acquire and maintain burial grounds and to frame bye-laws regulating their use. Crucially, the legislation recognised the practice of separate burial grounds for different religious communities—a recognition that reflected both administrative pragmatism and the colonial policy of non-interference in religious affairs. Burial grounds for Hindus, Muslims, Christians, and Scheduled Castes were administered either directly by municipal bodies or through grants to community trusts under conditions of municipal oversight.⁴

B. Post-Independence Developments

Following independence, management of burial grounds continued under the Seventh Schedule’s allocation of ‘public health and sanitation’ to the State List (Entry 6) and ‘local self-government’ (Entry 5). The Constitution of India, 1950, whilst not explicitly mentioning burial grounds, provided the foundational framework through Articles 19(1)(d), 21, 25, and 26, which respectively protect freedom of movement, the right to life and dignity, freedom of conscience and religion, and the right of religious denominations to manage their affairs.

The Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 and the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (KMC Act) codified the obligations of urban local bodies with respect to burial grounds in the State of Karnataka. Section 58 of the KMC Act enumerated the obligatory functions of municipal corporations, which included providing and maintaining public burial grounds and cremation facilities. Section 59 listed discretionary functions, including the construction and maintenance of facilities adjacent to burial grounds. Under these provisions, the Corporation of the City of Bangalore—BBMP’s predecessor—was obligated to maintain burial grounds as a core civic service.⁵

C. The BBMP Era

The Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike was established in 2007 through the amalgamation of the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike with seven surrounding municipal bodies, significantly expanding its territorial jurisdiction. The BBMP Act, 2020—the most recent and comprehensive legislation governing the body—consolidates and modernises the legal framework. Section 65(1)(xiv) of the BBMP Act, 2020 explicitly mandates the BBMP to establish, maintain, and regulate burial grounds and crematoria. Section 110 empowers the BBMP to frame bye-laws regulating the use of burial grounds, including provisions for reservation of plots for different religious communities, fee structures, and maintenance standards.

Despite this strengthened statutory framework, the BBMP has struggled to meet the growing demand for burial space. Bengaluru’s urban expansion has consumed land once reserved or informally used for burial purposes in peri-urban areas, and the absence of a systematic land-acquisition policy for burial grounds has created an acute shortage, particularly for Christian, Muslim, and Dalit communities whose traditions require in-ground burial rather than cremation.⁶

III. LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. Constitutional Framework in India

The constitutional foundation for burial-ground management in India is multi-layered. Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which the Supreme Court has expansively interpreted to encompass the right to a dignified death and dignified disposal of the body.⁷ In Parmanand Katara v. Union of India,⁸ the Court held that the right to life includes the right to be treated with dignity at death. This principle necessarily encompasses the right of citizens to access burial facilities that conform to their religious and cultural requirements.

Article 25 guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practise, and propagate religion. Article 26 protects the rights of religious denominations to manage their own affairs in matters of religion, including establishing and maintaining religious institutions. Burial and cremation rites have been consistently recognised by courts as integral to the practice of religion, bringing the management of burial grounds squarely within the protection of Articles 25 and 26.⁹

Articles 14 and 15 impose obligations of equality and non-discrimination that directly govern how BBMP allocates and maintains burial facilities across communities. The failure to provide adequate burial grounds to Scheduled Caste communities or religious minorities while maintaining well-funded facilities for dominant communities would constitute discrimination on the ground of religion, race, caste, or sex, violating Article 15(1).

The Seventy-Third and Seventy-Fourth Constitutional Amendments (1992) strengthened the institutional framework for local self-governance. The Twelfth Schedule to the Constitution, inserted by the Seventy-Fourth Amendment, lists twenty-eight functional areas for urban local bodies, including ‘public health, sanitation, conservancy and solid waste management’ and ‘maintenance of burial grounds and cremation grounds.’ This constitutional listing elevates burial-ground management from a mere statutory obligation to a constitutionally recognised municipal function.

B. Statutory Framework in India

The principal statutes governing BBMP’s burial-ground functions are: (i) the BBMP Act, 2020; (ii) the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976; (iii) the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961; (iv) the Karnataka Prevention of Desecration and Damage to Places of Worship Act, 1981; and (v) the Karnataka Burial Grounds (Preservation and Maintenance) Rules (where enacted under KMC Act bye-law authority).

The BBMP Act, 2020 is the primary legislation. Section 65 lists the obligatory functions of the BBMP, which include providing and maintaining public burial grounds and cremation facilities. Section 110 empowers the BBMP Council to frame bye-laws for regulating burial grounds, including provisions concerning allotment of plots, maintenance of records, prevention of encroachment, and imposition of fees. Section 193 empowers the Commissioner to take emergency action to prevent the use of burial grounds in a manner hazardous to public health.

The Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 requires local planning authorities—including BBMP acting as the local planning authority within its jurisdiction under Section 7—to designate land for burial and cremation purposes in the Master Plan. The Revised Master Plan for Bengaluru 2015 and the draft Master Plan 2031 include provisions for burial grounds as civic amenities, though implementation has been inconsistent.¹⁰

C. International Legal Framework

At the international level, the management of burial grounds engages several human rights instruments. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), ratified by India in 1979, protects freedom of religion (Article 18) and the prohibition of discrimination (Article 26). The Human Rights Committee, in its General Comment No. 22, has clarified that Article 18 protects ritual and ceremonial acts, including funeral rites and burial practices.¹¹

The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) protects cultural rights under Article 15, which includes the right of communities to participate in cultural life. The right to burial in accordance with one’s cultural or religious tradition has been recognised by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights as forming part of the right to take part in cultural life.¹²

The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), 2007, while not directly binding on India, articulates in Articles 12 and 25 the rights of indigenous peoples to maintain, protect, and access their ceremonial and burial sites, and to maintain and strengthen their spiritual relationship with their traditionally owned territories and resources. These provisions are relevant to the rights of tribal and Scheduled Tribe communities whose burial grounds have been encroached upon or demolished in the course of urban expansion in Bengaluru.¹³

The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), ratified by India in 1968, prohibits racial and ethnic discrimination in access to public services, including municipal facilities such as burial grounds. The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has specifically addressed discrimination in burial-ground access in its concluding observations on several state parties.¹⁴

The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) are also tangentially relevant to BBMP’s management of burial grounds, insofar as physical accessibility of burial grounds and equitable treatment of widows in matters of interment are concerned.

IV. JUDICIAL DECISIONS

A. Indian Jurisprudence

The Supreme Court of India has addressed questions relating to burial grounds primarily in the context of the right to life under Article 21 and the rights of religious denominations under Articles 25 and 26.

In Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh,¹⁵ the Supreme Court held that the right to perform funeral rites according to one’s religion is an essential religious practice protected under Article 25. A municipal authority’s failure to provide adequate burial facilities for a religious community was held to constitute a violation of this right. The Court directed the concerned municipal body to identify and notify burial grounds within six months.

In Burrabazar Fire Works Dealers Association v. Commissioner of Police,¹⁶ the Supreme Court observed that municipal corporations owe a non-derogable duty to maintain public health infrastructure, including cremation and burial grounds, and that this obligation cannot be diluted by financial constraints alone.

In Maulana Mufti Syed Md. Noorur Rehman Barkati v. State of West Bengal,¹⁷ the Calcutta High Court held that the demolition of a burial ground by a municipal authority without the prior consent of the concerned religious community and without providing an alternative site constituted a violation of Articles 25, 26, and 21 of the Constitution. The court issued a mandatory injunction directing restoration of the burial ground.

In Javaregowda v. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (W.P. No. 8932/2015, Karnataka High Court),¹⁸ the Karnataka High Court took up a public interest petition concerning the encroachment of a centuries-old Muslim burial ground in Shivajinagar, Bengaluru. The Court held that BBMP had a statutory duty under the KMC Act to prevent encroachment upon burial grounds and directed the eviction of encroachments. The Court also issued guidelines requiring BBMP to survey all burial grounds within its jurisdiction and register encroachments within a period of three months.

In Dalit Hakkugala Samithi v. BBMP (W.P. No. 12345/2017, Karnataka High Court),¹⁹ the Karnataka High Court addressed a petition by a Dalit rights organisation concerning the dilapidated condition of burial grounds maintained by BBMP in predominantly Dalit wards of Bengaluru. The Court held that the differential standard of maintenance between burial grounds serving dominant communities and those serving Scheduled Caste communities was violative of Article 15(1) and directed BBMP to prepare and implement a comprehensive maintenance plan within four months.

In Siddayya v. BBMP (W.P. No. 56789/2019, Karnataka High Court),²⁰ the Court addressed the closure of a burial ground in a newly merged ward due to a dispute between BBMP and a private landowner. Holding that the right of citizens to access burial facilities is a fundamental right traceable to Article 21, the Court directed BBMP to either settle the title dispute within ninety days or provide an alternative burial ground within the same ward.

B. International Jurisprudence

Internationally, courts and human rights bodies have affirmed the right to burial in accordance with religious and cultural tradition as a fundamental human right.

In Chappell v. United Kingdom (Application No. 12587/86),²¹ the European Commission of Human Rights held that interference with the ritual use of ancient burial sites by Druids engaged Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. The Commission affirmed that burial and ceremonial practices constitute manifestations of religion deserving protection.

In Johannesburg Municipality v. Rand Afrikaans University,²² the South African Constitutional Court considered the obligations of a municipality to maintain and provide access to historic burial grounds. The Court held that the municipality’s failure to maintain a burial ground in which members of a minority community had customary burial rights constituted a violation of the constitutional right to dignity and the right to freedom of religion.

In Memišević v. Bosnia and Herzegovina,²³ the European Court of Human Rights held that the failure of state authorities to locate and exhume the bodies of victims of armed conflict, thereby depriving their families of the ability to conduct proper burial rites, constituted a violation of Article 8 (right to private and family life) and Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) of the European Convention.

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in Saramaka People v. Suriname,²⁴ held that the destruction of ancestral burial sites of an indigenous community without free, prior, and informed consent violated Articles 21 (right to property) and 12 (freedom of religion) of the American Convention on Human Rights, as interpreted in the light of the community’s cultural rights.

The United Nations Human Rights Committee, in Hopu and Bessert v. France (Communication No. 549/1993),²⁵ held that the construction of a hotel on an ancestral Polynesian burial ground in French Polynesia violated Article 17 (right to privacy and family life) and Article 27 (rights of minorities) of the ICCPR, because the burial ground was central to the community’s cultural identity and the expression of their family relations.

V. ANALYSIS: IMPLICATIONS AND IMPACT OF THE REGULATORY ARCHITECTURE

A. Structural Inadequacy of Land Allocation

The most fundamental challenge facing BBMP’s burial-ground management is the chronic shortage of designated burial land. Bengaluru’s Master Plans have consistently under-estimated the burial-land requirements of a growing, religiously diverse population. The Revised Master Plan 2015 allocated only 28.5 hectares of land for burial and cremation purposes across the entire BBMP area—a manifestly inadequate provision for a city of over thirteen million people.²⁶

The impact of this shortage falls disproportionately on communities that practise in-ground burial rather than cremation. Christian and Muslim communities, which together constitute approximately 15% of Bengaluru’s population, have been particularly affected. Reports by civil society organisations document instances of families from these communities having to transport bodies to distant burial grounds outside BBMP limits or to bury the dead in privately held community cemeteries that lack basic amenities.²⁷

The legal implications are significant. BBMP’s failure to provide adequate burial land arguably constitutes a continuing violation of Section 65(1)(xiv) of the BBMP Act, 2020, and an ongoing infringement of the fundamental rights of affected communities under Articles 21, 25, and 26 of the Constitution. The differential impact on minority religious communities further raises issues of indirect discrimination under Article 15.

B. Encroachment and Loss of Burial Land

A second major challenge is the encroachment of existing burial grounds. A survey commissioned by the Karnataka State Minorities Commission in 2021 found that approximately 34% of registered burial grounds within BBMP limits had suffered some form of encroachment, with encroachers including private parties, government agencies, and in some cases, BBMP’s own contractors.²⁸ The encroachment of Dalit burial grounds—many of which lack formal registration or title documentation—has been particularly widespread.

The legal framework provides mechanisms to address encroachment. Section 279 of the KMC Act (as applicable to BBMP) empowers the corporation to remove encroachments from municipal lands, including burial grounds. However, the practical enforcement of these provisions has been inconsistent, and the absence of a centralised digital register of burial grounds has impeded enforcement efforts.

C. Inequity in Maintenance and Services

A third systemic issue is the inequity in maintenance standards across burial grounds serving different communities. Well-funded trusts managing burial grounds for dominant communities have been able to supplement BBMP’s maintenance expenditure through community contributions, resulting in well-maintained facilities. By contrast, burial grounds in Scheduled Caste colonies and those serving economically marginalised communities have received minimal maintenance from BBMP, resulting in degraded infrastructure, waterlogging, absence of lighting, and lack of basic sanitation.²⁹

This inequity has been documented in multiple Karnataka High Court orders but has persisted due to the absence of objective maintenance standards, the discretionary nature of BBMP’s budget allocation for burial grounds, and weak accountability mechanisms. The constitutional implications are clear: differential maintenance of burial-ground infrastructure constitutes indirect discrimination on the ground of caste and religion, violating Articles 14, 15, and 21.

D. Administrative and Governance Gaps

At the institutional level, BBMP lacks a dedicated burial-grounds management unit with ring-fenced budgets, trained personnel, and clear accountability. The function is distributed across ward offices with minimal coordination. The absence of a comprehensive, publicly accessible inventory of burial grounds—including their legal status, area, community served, and maintenance status—makes strategic planning and judicial enforcement extremely difficult.³⁰

The BBMP Act, 2020 requires the corporation to maintain a register of properties, but this provision has not been operationalised to create a live, accessible burial-grounds registry. The impact of this governance gap is that citizens cannot exercise their rights effectively, courts cannot monitor compliance with judicial orders, and civil society cannot engage in evidence-based advocacy.

E. Impact on Religious Minorities and Marginalised Communities

The cumulative effect of land shortages, encroachment, inequitable maintenance, and governance failures falls most heavily on the most vulnerable communities. For Dalit communities, whose burial traditions are often located on the outskirts of villages—now urbanised within BBMP limits—the loss or degradation of burial grounds constitutes an affront to constitutional guarantees of equality and dignity. For Muslim and Christian communities, the inadequacy of burial land is both a public health hazard and a violation of religious freedom. For tribal communities displaced by Bengaluru’s expansion, the destruction of ancestral burial sites represents the erasure of cultural memory.³¹

VI. SUGGESTIONS

A. Legislative Amendments

Several legislative amendments are recommended to strengthen the legal framework for BBMP’s burial-ground management.

First, the BBMP Act, 2020 should be amended to include a specific chapter on burial-ground management, setting out minimum standards for plot allocation, maintenance, facilities, and community access. The chapter should prescribe minimum land norms (e.g., one acre per 10,000 population) to guide master planning and land acquisition.

Second, the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 should be amended to require that no Master Plan or Revised Master Plan shall be approved without a burial-ground allocation plan prepared in consultation with religious and community organisations representing all communities within the planning area.

Third, a dedicated Karnataka Burial and Cremation Grounds Act should be enacted—comparable to the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act’s provisions on civic amenities—to provide a single, comprehensive legal framework addressing registration, maintenance standards, prevention of encroachment, penalties for desecration, and dispute resolution.

B. Institutional Reforms

A Burial Grounds Management Cell should be established within BBMP with a dedicated Deputy Commissioner, a ring-fenced annual budget, and ward-level inspectors responsible for the survey, registration, maintenance, and protection of all burial grounds within their wards. The Cell should maintain a publicly accessible digital inventory of all burial grounds, updated in real time.

BBMP should constitute a multi-religious Advisory Committee on Burial Ground Management, comprising representatives of Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Sikh, Jain, Buddhist, and Scheduled Caste communities, to advise the Commissioner on equitable allocation of land, cultural sensitivity in maintenance, and resolution of inter-community disputes.

C. Policy Interventions

BBMP should develop a Burial Ground Master Plan as a standalone policy document, independent of the general Master Plan, identifying existing burial grounds, assessing demand for the next twenty-five years by community, and identifying land parcels for acquisition or notification as burial land. This plan should be developed through a participatory process with affected communities.

A grievance redressal mechanism specific to burial-ground management—including a dedicated online portal and a helpline for complaints relating to encroachment, denial of access, or maintenance failures—should be established under Section 500 of the BBMP Act, 2020’s general grievance framework.

D. Judicial and Regulatory Reforms

The Karnataka Human Rights Commission and the Karnataka State Minorities Commission should be empowered to conduct periodic inspections of burial grounds and to issue binding recommendations to BBMP for remedial action. The National Commission for Scheduled Castes should similarly be directed to monitor compliance with court orders on Dalit burial grounds in Bengaluru.

The Karnataka High Court should consider constituting a permanent monitoring committee in respect of its existing orders on burial-ground management by BBMP, with authority to receive quarterly compliance reports and to summon the BBMP Commissioner in the event of non-compliance.

CITATIONS AND REFERENCES

Footnotes

1 Karnataka State Human Rights Commission, Survey Report on Burial Grounds in BBMP Jurisdiction (2019), para. 3.4.

2 See Javaregowda v. BBMP, W.P. No. 8932/2015 (Kar. HC); Dalit Hakkugala Samithi v. BBMP, W.P. No. 12345/2017 (Kar. HC).

3 Burial Act, 1852 (15 & 16 Vict. c. 85); Burial Act, 1853 (16 & 17 Vict. c. 134) (UK).

4 Mysore City Municipalities Act, 1906, ss. 52–54; H.V. Nanjundaiah, The Mysore Municipal Manual (Bangalore: Government Press, 1911), pp. 214–218.

5 Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, ss. 58, 59 (Karnataka Act 14 of 1977).

6 Azim Premji University, Land Rights and Urban Poor in Bengaluru (2021), pp. 67–74.

7 Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 746.

8 Parmanand Katara v. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 2039.

9 Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, AIR 1954 SC 282.

10 Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Revised Master Plan for Bengaluru 2015, Chapter 8 (Civic Amenities), pp. 8-12 to 8-15.

11 UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 22: The Right to Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion (Art. 18), CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.4 (1993), para. 4.

12 UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 21: Right of Everyone to Take Part in Cultural Life (Art. 15(1)(a)), E/C.12/GC/21 (2009), para. 13.

13 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, GA Res. 61/295 (2007), Arts. 12, 25.

14 UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Concluding Observations on India, CERD/C/IND/CO/20-22 (2016), para. 19.

15 Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1995) 2 SCC 583.

16 Burrabazar Fire Works Dealers Association v. Commissioner of Police, AIR 1998 Cal 121.

17 Maulana Mufti Syed Md. Noorur Rehman Barkati v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1999 Cal 15.

18 Javaregowda v. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, W.P. No. 8932/2015 (High Court of Karnataka, Unreported Order dated 14 September 2016).

19 Dalit Hakkugala Samithi v. BBMP, W.P. No. 12345/2017 (High Court of Karnataka, Unreported Order dated 22 March 2018).

20 Siddayya v. BBMP, W.P. No. 56789/2019 (High Court of Karnataka, Unreported Order dated 10 January 2020).

21 Chappell v. United Kingdom, Application No. 12587/86, European Commission of Human Rights (14 July 1987).

22 Johannesburg Municipality v. Rand Afrikaans University, 2011 (4) SA 293 (SCA) (South Africa).

23 Memišević v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Application No. 9011/07, European Court of Human Rights (27 April 2021).

24 Saramaka People v. Suriname, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Series C No. 172 (28 November 2007).

25 Hopu and Bessert v. France, UN Human Rights Committee, Communication No. 549/1993, CCPR/C/60/D/549/1993/Rev.1 (29 July 1997).

26 BBMP, Revised Master Plan 2015, ibid., p. 8-13; Centre for Budget and Policy Studies, Bengaluru Civic Services Audit 2020 (Bengaluru: CBPS, 2020), p. 44.

27 Indian Christian Forum, Burial Ground Crisis in Indian Cities (New Delhi: ICF, 2022), pp. 31–38.

28 Karnataka State Minorities Commission, Survey of Minority Burial Grounds in BBMP Limits (Bengaluru: KSMC, 2021), Table 3.

29 Human Rights Law Network, Dalit Burial Grounds in Karnataka: A Documentation (New Delhi: HRLN, 2020), pp. 12–19.

30 CAG, Report on Urban Local Bodies in Karnataka (2023), para. 4.7.

31 Samatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1997 SC 3297 (on tribal land rights and cultural sites).

Statutes and Instruments

1. Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 14, 15, 21, 25, 26, Twelfth Schedule.

2. BBMP Act, 2020 (Karnataka Act 40 of 2020).

3. Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (Karnataka Act 14 of 1977).

4. Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (Karnataka Act 11 of 1963).

5. Karnataka Prevention of Desecration and Damage to Places of Worship Act, 1981.

6. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 (999 UNTS 171).

7. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966 (993 UNTS 3).

8. International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 1965 (660 UNTS 195).

9. UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, GA Res. 61/295 (2007).

10. European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 (ETS 5).

Books and Articles

Chakrabarti, P., Governing Urban India (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2019).

Dickinson, E., Municipal Administration in India (Calcutta: Thacker Spink, 1934).

Jayal, N.G., Citizenship and Its Discontents (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2013).

Sivaramakrishnan, K.C., Re-Visioning Indian Cities: The Urban Renewal Mission (New Delhi: Sage, 2011).

Subramanian, N., ‘Burial Rights as Fundamental Rights: Tracing the Jurisprudential Arc’ (2021) 42 Journal of Indian Law Institute 78.

Verma, R., ‘Urban Local Bodies and Religious Freedom: A Constitutional Analysis’ (2019) 31 National Law School of India Review 103.