SBI Term Loan: RLLR: 8.15 | 7.25% - 8.45%
Canara Bank: RLLR: 8 | 7.15% - 10%
ICICI Bank: RLLR: -- | 8.5% - 9.65%
Punjab & Sind Bank: RLLR: 7.3 | 7.3% - 10.7%
Bank of Baroda: RLLR: 7.9 | 7.2% - 8.95%
Federal Bank: RLLR: -- | 8.75% - 10%
IndusInd Bank: RLLR: -- | 7.5% - 9.75%
Bank of Maharashtra: RLLR: 8.05 | 7.1% - 9.15%
Yes Bank: RLLR: -- | 7.4% - 10.54%
Karur Vysya Bank: RLLR: 8.8 | 8.5% - 10.65%

Bombay High Court questions BMC’s inaction on open cremations at Manori Beach despite standing ban

#Law & Policy#India#Maharashtra#Mumbai City
Mumbai News Desk | Last Updated : 20th Feb, 2026
Synopsis

The Bombay High Court expressed strong concern over the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation's failure to prevent open cremations on a disputed plot at Manori Beach, even though the land has been under clear court restrictions for years. The court observed that any activity on the site, including cremation rites, was prohibited under earlier orders. It rejected the civic body's claim that the practice continued due to local sentiment and directed the BMC to ensure that all cremations are shifted to authorised facilities without delay.

The Bombay High Court took a stern view of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation's handling of open cremations being carried out on a disputed plot at Manori Beach, stating that the civic body had failed to enforce long-standing court orders that clearly barred any activity on the land. The bench noted that the restrictions were unambiguous and applied irrespective of the nature of the activity, including religious rites.


The issue was raised by Awaaz Foundation, which pointed out that bodies were being cremated in the open on land that is officially marked as disputed and has remained under judicial scrutiny for over a decade. The petitioner highlighted that repeated orders had restrained any use of the plot, yet open cremations continued unchecked, raising environmental and regulatory concerns.

Court records show that the dispute dates back to 2008, when the BMC attempted to alter the use of the land despite revenue records showing that an authorised Hindu crematorium already existed on adjoining plots. In subsequent years, the High Court passed multiple directions, including orders in 2013 to remove unauthorised structures from the area. Later rulings between 2013 and 2016 reiterated that no activity should be carried out on the disputed plot unless specifically permitted by the court. While the court had, at one stage, allowed the development and use of a designated crematorium, it had not lifted restrictions on the contested land.

During the recent hearing, the BMC told the court that it had not formally granted permission for open cremations at the beach site and claimed that local residents had been performing last rites there for many years. The civic body argued that it had been cautious due to local sensitivities and stated that it would intervene only if directed by the court.

The bench rejected this reasoning, stating that administrative authorities cannot ignore court orders on the ground of sentiment or custom. It made it clear that the prohibition covered all forms of activity and directed the BMC to actively ensure that residents use only the authorised crematorium. The court also stressed that the civic body must communicate this clearly to local residents and prevent any further open cremations on the restricted land.

Have something to say? Post your comment