Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Chhattisgarh, Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, while disposing of two public interest petitions related to hoardings restricting the entry of Christian pastors and converts in several villages of Kanker district, expressed concern over reports of certain missionary groups allegedly carrying out religious conversions in remote tribal areas. The Court noted that such groups are accused of targeting illiterate and economically vulnerable families, observing that “conversion by inducement” constitutes a “social menace.” It added that this problem arises when conversion is no longer an act of individual belief but stems from inducement, manipulation, or the exploitation of vulnerable communities. The Bench directed the petitioners to pursue the statutory remedy under the PESA Rules, 2022, and seek police protection if any threat is perceived.

The petitions arose from grievances relating to hoardings installed in multiple villages of District Kanker, stating that Christian pastors and “converted Christians” were prohibited from entering the villages. The petitioners alleged that these hoardings created fear among Christian residents, restricted their movement, and violated their fundamental rights under Article 25 and Article 19(1)(d). They claimed that such restrictions stemmed from a circular issued on 14.08.2025 by the Director, Panchayat Directorate, calling for an oath to protect traditional tribal culture. They contended that the circular was being misused to segregate Christian residents and to prevent them from entering their own villages.

Also Read: Income Tax Act | Assessee Barred From Challenging Assessment For Not Raising Timely Jurisdiction Objection Under Section 143(2): Chhattisgarh HC

The petitions stated that at least eight villages—Kudal, Parvi, Junwani, Ghota, Ghotiya, Havechur, Musurputta, and Sulangi—had erected these hoardings. Petitioners also asserted that Gram Sabha meetings were allegedly not convened in some villages and that the resolutions were passed without due procedure. They attempted to obtain copies of Gram Sabha resolutions but were refused, prompting them to file RTI applications.

The State and Gram Panchayats submitted that the hoardings were installed by the respective Gram Sabhas under powers given by the PESA Act, the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, and the PESA Rules, 2022. They argued that the circular was intended only to preserve tribal culture and did not direct the erection of hoardings. They stated that the Gram Sabha had authority to protect local cultural heritage under Rule 6(10) and maintain peace under Rule 40. They further cited instances of disputes in Bastar involving alleged illegal conversions and referred to the Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantrya Adhiniyam, 1968, upheld in Rev. Stanislaus.

The State also contended that an alternative statutory remedy existed under Rule 14 of the PESA Rules, 2022, requiring petitioners to first approach the Gram Sabha and thereafter the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) if aggrieved. The respondents maintained that the writ petitions were filed without exhausting these remedies.

The Court recorded that the petitioners raised concerns that “they belong to the Christian community and the certain people of tribal areas are restraining them from entering the villages as they fear that the people of the Christian community would lure the other residents and convert them into their faith.” It noted that the grievance extended to residents who “are also not permitted to enter their village merely on the ground that they practice Christian religion.”

The Court stated that “it is undisputed that the impugned hoardings were installed by respective Gram Sabhas exercising powers under the PESA framework.” It recorded that the State’s circular “primarily calls upon Gram Sabhas to preserve their traditional culture and social ethos” and that “no material has been placed on record to indicate that the circular authorises discrimination against any religious group.”

The Court observed that the Gram Sabha “has been conferred specific powers to manage community resources and safeguard tribal traditions” but that such powers function “within the limits of the Constitution of India.” It recorded the principle in Rev. Stanislaus, stating that the right to propagate religion “does not extend to converting another person through inducement, force, or fraudulent means.”

The judgment stated that the hoardings “cannot, per se, be termed unconstitutional” when intended to prevent “illegal conversion activities.” It noted the respondents’ reliance on earlier disputes involving conversion-related tensions in Bastar.

Regarding statutory powers, the Court recorded that Rule 129C “states that… the Gram Sabha in Scheduled Areas shall have the power to safeguard and preserve the traditions and customs of the people, their cultural identity and community resources.” It stated that one hoarding specified that pastors were restrained only “if they intend to organize any religious/conversion activities.”

It further stated that the petitioners’ “apprehension… are unfounded that they are prohibited from entering their villages.” The circular “nowhere instructs or instigates either to install hoardings or to instigate the villagers to spread religious hatred.”

The Court recorded the State’s submission that prior disputes and FIRs indicated local tensions and that the Act of 1968 had been upheld as valid. It then stated that the installation of hoardings “as a precautionary measure to protect the interest of indigenous tribals and local cultural heritage” could not be termed unconstitutional.

On the question of maintainability, the Court observed that “it is an admitted position that the petitioners have an alternative statutory remedy provided under the Rules of 2022.” It quoted that Rule 14 requires an aggrieved person to first seek reconsideration from the Gram Sabha and thereafter appeal to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue). It recorded that since this remedy was not exhausted, the petitioners must pursue it.

Also Read: Supreme Court Recommends Amendment to Employees’ Compensation Act to Include Adult Widowed Sisters as Dependents

The Court directed that the petitions “are disposed of with the following directions.” It stated that “the petitioners are at liberty to avail the remedy under Rule 14 of the Chhattisgarh PESA Rules, 2022 before the competent authority, if they so choose. In case the petitioner or any individual apprehend threat to life, liberty, or movement, they may seek protection from the jurisdictional police, which shall be considered in accordance with law. Interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.” It stated that any observations made “shall not prejudice the case of the petitioners, if they take recourse to the alternative remedy available to them and the same may be considered by the competent authority, in accordance with law, on its own merits. The security amount deposited by the petitioner(s) stand forfeited.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Kishore Narayan, Advocate; Dr. Arpit Lall and Mr. Ayush Lall, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Additional Advocate General; Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Advocate; Mr. Anupam Dubey, Advocate; Mr. B. Gopa Kumar (through Video Conferencing), Advocate; Mr. Himanshu Pandey, Advocate; Mr. Palash Tiwari, Advocate; Mr. Rohit Sharma, Advocate; Mr. Harshal Chouhan, Advocate; Mr. Mahesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate; Mr. Vaibhav P. Shukla, Advocate; Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, Advocate; Mr. Jay Singh, Advocate.

Case Title: Digbal Tandi v. State of Chhattisgarh & Narendra Bhawani v. State of Chhattisgarh
Neutral Citation: 2025: CGHC:52449-DB
Case Number: WPPIL No. 83 of 2025 and WPPIL No. 86 of 2025
Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, Justice Bibhu Datta Guru