Introduction:

In a landmark decision, the Bombay High Court, in the case of Lakhani’s Blue Waves Co-operative Housing Society Ltd vs The Chairman, CIDCO (Writ Petition 813 of 2024), ruled that citizens do not have a fundamental right to be cremated or buried at a specific location of their choice. The Division Bench comprising Justices Ajay Gadkari and Kamal Khata directed the City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO) to remove a crematorium constructed near residential societies, shops, a school, and a playground in Sector 9 of Navi Mumbai’s Ulwe area. The Court observed that CIDCO had already provided a fully functional crematorium in Sector 14, approximately 3.5 km away. It emphasised that planning authorities, not individual citizens, are responsible for designating cremation grounds. The judgment came in response to petitions filed by two housing societies challenging the construction of the crematorium near their vicinity, citing concerns over pollution, mental distress, and public health.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The petitioners, Lakhani’s Blue Waves Co-operative Housing Society and Ami’s Planet Mercury Co-operative Housing Society, contended that the construction of the crematorium was unauthorized and situated in an area originally designated for a petrol pump. They argued that due to the influence of certain individuals, a contractor was appointed, and construction was initiated in violation of planning norms. The societies highlighted the adverse impact on residents, particularly children attending a nearby school, due to the smoke, foul smell, and air pollution caused by cremations. They maintained that the villagers who previously used the crematorium could easily access the alternate facility in Sector 14, located just 15-20 minutes away. Conversely, the villagers argued that the crematorium had existed on the site for over 250 years and was not an illegal construction. They emphasized that CIDCO itself had funded the renovation of the structure and issued work orders for its maintenance. Relocating the crematorium, they contended, would impose undue hardship on the local community. They also asserted that the growth of housing societies around the crematorium should not be a valid ground for its removal.

Court’s Judgment:

The Court was unconvinced by the villagers’ argument, particularly given the presence of a fully operational crematorium nearby. The Bench reiterated that the right to choose a cremation or burial site is not a fundamental right, and such decisions rest with the planning authorities. It was observed that allowing the crematorium to function in its current location would disrupt the lives of residents, given its proximity to residential areas, schools, and commercial establishments. The Court also agreed with the petitioners’ concerns regarding air pollution and mental distress. It stated that the crematorium’s location within a densely populated area was not appropriate and could have been better planned. Accordingly, the High Court ordered CIDCO to remove the crematorium and ensure that residents and villagers have access to the alternative facility. CIDCO was further directed to take necessary steps to prevent unauthorized developments in the future. The judgment reaffirmed the role of planning authorities in determining locations for public utilities and dismissed claims that the crematorium’s historical presence justified its continued operation at the disputed site.