SupremeCourt – Bench Encourages Settlement in Isha Crematorium Dispute
SupremeCourt – The Supreme Court on Thursday encouraged a negotiated resolution between Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev’s Isha Foundation and a Coimbatore resident who has objected to the operation of a crematorium near his home on the outskirts of the city.
Court Suggests Mutual Resolution
Hearing the matter, a bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi, recorded that both sides were open to exploring a settlement. The court noted that the foundation had expressed its readiness to purchase the petitioner’s property at prevailing market rates, allowing him to move to another location if an agreement is reached.
The bench emphasized that a mutually acceptable solution could bring closure to a dispute that has been pending for some time. The case has now been scheduled for further consideration on April 17.
Resident Challenges Location of Facility
The petition was filed by S.N. Subramanian, who questioned the establishment of a gasifier-based crematorium situated roughly 10 metres from his residence. In his plea, Subramanian argued that the surrounding locality is largely inhabited by members of tribal communities where burial practices are traditionally followed instead of cremation.
He also contended that local regulations restrict the construction of cremation facilities in close proximity to residential houses and water sources unless specific approvals are obtained from the village panchayat. According to the petitioner, these norms were not properly adhered to in the present case.
Mediator Appointed to Facilitate Talks
At Subramanian’s request, the Supreme Court appointed Justice B. Rajendran, a former judge of the Madras High Court, to act as a mediator between the two parties. The move signals the court’s preference for a consensual resolution rather than prolonged litigation.
The bench directed counsel representing both sides—advocate Prashant Bhushan and senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi—to coordinate with the mediator to explore the possibility of an agreement. The court’s order formally recorded the consent of the parties to participate in the mediation process.
Background of the Legal Dispute
The matter reached the Supreme Court after the Madras High Court dismissed Subramanian’s earlier plea. The High Court had held that the crematorium was established with valid approval from the competent panchayat authorities and that it served a public purpose.
In its earlier ruling, the High Court observed that such facilities are essential civic infrastructure and cannot be opposed solely on individual inconvenience if statutory permissions are in place. Dissatisfied with that decision, Subramanian approached the apex court seeking relief.
Focus on Balancing Public and Individual Interests
The case highlights the recurring legal challenge of balancing community infrastructure needs with individual concerns about proximity and environmental impact. Gasifier crematoriums are often promoted as cleaner alternatives to traditional wood-based systems, yet their placement in residential or culturally sensitive areas can lead to objections.
By steering the parties toward mediation, the Supreme Court appears to be encouraging a solution that addresses the resident’s concerns while also taking into account the broader public interest served by the facility.
The outcome of the mediation process may determine whether the dispute concludes through a property transaction or returns to the court for adjudication on legal grounds.