Why Did Chhattisgarh High Court Dismiss PIL Against 'Pastor Entry Ban' in Tribal Villages? Full Story Inside

Bilaspur. The Chhattisgarh High Court, in a recent judgement, dismissed two Public Interest Litigations (PILs) challenging hoardings erected in villages of Kanker district that allegedly prohibit the entry of Christian pastors and 'converted Christians.' The court affirmed that such measures, taken by Gram Sabhas under the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA Act), are valid for protecting tribal cultural identity and emphasized that religious propagation does not extend to conversions through inducement or fraud.

Directing petitioners to first pursue statutory appeals under PESA Rules, 2022, the decision strikes a balance between constitutional freedoms and indigenous rights, drawing on Supreme Court precedents to urge that faith must remain a matter of conviction, not coercion.

The case revolves around at least eight villages in Kanker district, where Gram Panchayats installed hoardings under the banner of "Hamari Parampara Hamari Virasat" (Our Tradition, Our Heritage). These boards invoke Section 4(d) of the PESA Act, empowering Gram Sabhas to preserve village culture, and claim that enticement-driven conversions among tribals are eroding ancestral practices.

Petitioners Digbal Tandi and Narendra Bhawani, through PILs Nos. 83 and 86 of 2025, argued that the hoardings violate Article 25 (freedom of religion) and Article 19(1)(d) (right to free movement) of the Constitution. They highlighted how even local Christian residents face barriers returning home without proselytizing intent, fostering fear and division. Advocates Kishore Narayan, Dr. Arpit Lall, and Ayush Lall contended that such resolutions contravene Rule 40(A) of the Chhattisgarh PESA Rules, 2022, which bars Gram Sabhas from enacting unconstitutional measures, and accused the boards of inciting religious hatred.

The petitioners had submitted representations to the District Collector and Superintendent of Police on August 11, seeking intervention, but to no avail. They also filed RTI applications on August 27, to access Gram Sabha resolutions, alleging procedural lapses like lack of quorum or public announcements in villages such as Havechur.

Representing the state, Additional Advocate General Y.S. Thakur defended the August 14, circular from the Panchayat Directorate, clarifying it solely promotes oaths to protect tribal water, forests, land, folk songs, festivals, and worship systems, without targeting any faith. He stressed that the hoardings target only external pastors engaging in illegal conversions via allurement, prohibited under the Chhattisgarh Freedom of Religion Act, 1968 (adapted from Madhya Pradesh's 1968 law).

Citing the Supreme Court's Rev. Stanislaus vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977) ruling, Thakur argued that Article 25's right to "propagate" religion does not confer a fundamental right to convert others. Advocates for Gram Panchayats, including Sangharsh Pandey, Anupam Dubey, B. Gopa Kumar (via video), Himanshu Pandey, Palash Tiwari, Rohit Sharma, Harshal Chouhan, Mahesh Kumar Mishra, Vaibhav P. Shukla, Vivek Kumar Agrawal, and Jay Singh, echoed these points, referencing Rule 6(10) of PESA Rules, 2022, which grants Gram Sabhas authority to shield cultural heritage, including deity places, worship practices, and social customs from destructive influences.

One Panchayat submitted a villagers' complaint alleging Christians lured tribals with false promises of curing ailments. Notably, respondent counsel Harshal Chouhan accused petitioner Narendra Bhawani of political motivations, citing six FIRs against him as Chhattisgarh Janata Congress Jogi's city president for inciting unrest.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru heard arguments from all sides, meticulously reviewing pleadings and annexures. In the judgment, the court contextualized religious conversion as a longstanding socio-political flashpoint in India, particularly in tribal areas where missionary activities, initially focused on education and healthcare, have allegedly morphed into tools for proselytization among vulnerable populations.

Justice Sinha observed:

The bench noted that the hoardings serve as precautionary steps to prevent cultural erosion, without blanket bans on local Christians, rendering petitioners' fears unfounded. It highlighted past violence in Bastar Division, including 2023 clashes in Narayanpur where the SP was injured, underscoring the need for public order.

Central to the ruling was an extensive excerpt from the Supreme Court's 1977 Stanislaus judgment, where the Constitution Bench held: "The expression 'propagate' has been defined... to mean 'to spread from person to person... to disseminate, diffuse (a statement, belief, practice, etc.)'... We have no doubt that it is in this sense that the word 'propagate' has been used in Article 25(1), for what the Article grants is not the right to convert another person to one's own religion, but to transmit or spread one's religion by an exposition of its tenets... There is no fundamental right to convert another person to one's own religion because if a person purposely undertakes the conversion of another person to his religion... that would impinge on the 'freedom of conscience' guaranteed to all the citizens of the country alike."

Building on this, the court declared, "In view of the above observations made by the Apex Court, the installation of the hoardings for preventing forcible conversion by way of allurement or fraudulent means cannot be termed as unconstitutional. The hoardings appear to have been installed by the concerned Gram Sabhas as a precautionary measure to protect the interest of indigenous tribals and local cultural heritage."

The bench further invoked Rule 129C of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, empowering Gram Sabhas in Scheduled Areas to preserve traditions, customs, and community resources. Stressing procedural fairness, it mandated exhaustion of remedies under Rule 14 of PESA Rules, 2022, allowing appeals first to the Gram Sabha and then to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue). The headnote succinctly stated, "A party must firstly exhaust the statutory alternative remedy available before approaching the High Court seeking redressal of any grievance." Both PILs were disposed of with directions: petitioners may appeal locally if desired; threats to life or liberty warrant police protection, to be granted per law; interlocutory applications stand disposed; observations shall not prejudice future proceedings; and security deposits are forfeited.

The Hindu outfits see this ruling as a win for tribal self-governance in Chhattisgarh's Fifth Schedule areas, reinforcing PESA's role in cultural preservation amid rising conversion disputes. Critics from Christian groups express dismay, viewing it as a curb on minority rights, while Adivasi activists celebrate it as a shield against cultural dilution. With Kanker falling entirely under Scheduled Areas, the decision could set precedents for similar tensions in neighboring states.