The Chhattisgarh High Court recently dismissed two petitions challenging the legality of village hoardings that ban the entry of Christian pastors and converts. The court determined that these hoardings, erected in eight villages, are not unconstitutional as they aim to prevent forced conversions carried out through deceptive or coercive methods.
A division bench, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, noted that the gram sabhas (village councils) appeared to have installed these signs as a protective measure. Their intention was to safeguard the interests of indigenous tribal communities and preserve local cultural heritage.
The court’s decision, issued on October 28, 2025, responded to petitions filed by Digbal Tandi from Kanker district and Narendra Bhavani from Bastar district. These petitioners had raised concerns about the alleged isolation of Christians and their religious leaders within the village communities.
The petitions contended that the Panchayat Department had instructed various panchayat levels (zilla, janpad, and gram) to pass resolutions under the slogan “Hamari Parampara Hamari Virasat” (our tradition, our heritage). The actual purpose of these circulars, it was argued, was to facilitate resolutions that would prohibit pastors and “converted Christians” from entering the villages.
For instance, the Ghotiya gram panchayat in Kanker’s Bhanupratappur tehsil reportedly put up a hoarding. This hoarding declared the village a 5th Schedule Area, where the Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA Act), applies, granting the gram sabha authority to protect its identity and culture. The petitioners alleged that this resolution led to pastors and converted Christians from other areas being barred from entering Ghotiya for religious events, fostering fear among the minority community. Similar restrictions were reportedly implemented in Kudal, Parvi, Junwani, Ghota, Havechur, Musurputta, and Sulangi villages.
Lawyers for the petitioners argued that such gram sabha resolutions are unlawful and violate Article 25 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees freedom of religion.
In response, Additional Advocate General Y.S. Thakur asserted that PESA rules empower gram sabhas to protect local cultural heritage, including places of worship, traditional institutions, and humanistic social practices, from destructive behaviors. He clarified that the hoardings specifically targeted pastors from outside the villages involved in illegal conversions of tribals through inducements, thus violating PESA rules and harming tribal culture.
Mr. Thakur also suggested that the petitioners should have pursued the statutory alternative remedy of appealing to the sub-divisional officer (Revenue) before approaching the high court, rendering their pro bono publico pleas non-maintainable.
Ultimately, the High Court, referencing previous Supreme Court judgments, concluded that “the installation of the hoardings for preventing forcible conversion by way of allurement or fraudulent means cannot be termed as unconstitutional.” The court further advised that if petitioners fear being restricted from their villages or perceive a threat, they should seek police protection.