Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Village Hoardings Barring Entry to Pastors as Constitutional Protection for Tribal Communities

The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed two petitions seeking the removal of hoardings that prohibit entry to pastors and "converted Christians" in eight villages, ruling that these signs were installed as preventive measures against forced religious conversions and therefore cannot be deemed unconstitutional.

The division bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru determined that the hoardings appeared to have been erected by the respective gram sabhas as a precautionary measure to safeguard the interests of indigenous tribal communities and preserve local cultural heritage.

This ruling, dated October 28, addressed petitions filed by Digbal Tandi from Kanker district and Narendra Bhavani from Bastar district.

The petitioners highlighted concerns regarding the alleged isolation of Christians and their religious leaders from the mainstream village community.

According to the petitions, the Panchayat Department had instructed various panchayat levels to pass resolutions under the banner "Hamari Parampara Hamari Virasat" (our tradition, our heritage). The petitioners claimed the underlying intention was to prohibit pastors and converted Christians from entering these villages.

Ghotiya gram panchayat in Kanker district had displayed a hoarding stating that the village falls under the 5th Schedule Area where PESA Act provisions apply, and that the gram sabha has authority to protect the village's identity and cultural heritage.

The petitioners alleged that based on gram sabha resolutions, pastors and converted Christians from other areas were prevented from entering Ghotiya for religious activities or conversions, creating apprehension among minority community members.

Similar hoardings were reportedly installed in seven other villages including Kudal, Parvi, Junwani, Ghota, Havechur, Musurputta, and Sulangi.

The petitioners' legal representatives argued that gram sabhas cannot pass resolutions contradicting the Constitution and established law, claiming these hoardings violated Article 25, which guarantees religious freedom.

Additional Advocate General Y S Thakur countered that PESA rules empower gram sabhas to protect local cultural heritage, including religious sites, worship systems, traditional institutions, and social practices from disruptive influences.

Thakur emphasized that the hoardings specifically targeted pastors from other areas who were allegedly entering the villages to illegally convert tribal residents through inducements, thereby harming local cultural traditions in violation of PESA Rules.

He further argued that dissatisfied individuals should have appealed to the sub-divisional officer (Revenue) before approaching the high court, making the petitions procedurally improper.

Referencing Supreme Court precedents, the High Court 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 noted that the petitioners should have exhausted available statutory remedies before seeking judicial intervention. It added that if petitioners feared being barred from entering their villages or perceived threats, they could seek police protection.