Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Gram Sabha's Right to Bar Pastors, Citing 'Social Menace' of Induced Conversions

RAIPUR, Chhattisgarh – In a significant ruling that navigates the complex intersection of religious freedom, tribal autonomy, and cultural preservation, the Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld the actions of several Gram Sabhas (village councils) in Kanker district that erected hoardings barring the entry of Christian pastors and converted Christians. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, characterized religious "conversion by inducement" as a "social menace" and deemed the village councils' actions a constitutional "precautionary measure" to protect indigenous culture.

The judgment, delivered in the case of Digbal Tandi v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. , provides a robust judicial endorsement for the powers of Gram Sabhas under the Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA Act). It reframes the debate around religious conversion from a purely individual right to one that must be balanced against the collective right of indigenous communities to maintain their cultural and social integrity.

Background of the Dispute

The legal challenge arose after Gram Sabhas in at least eight villages—including Kudal, Parvi, and Junwani—installed notice boards at their entry points. These hoardings explicitly restricted the entry of Christian pastors and individuals who had converted to Christianity, citing the need to prevent religious conversions through coercion or allurement.

The petitioners, led by Digbal Tandi, a practising Christian, argued that these resolutions and hoardings constituted a violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. They contended that the measures infringed upon the freedom of religion under Article 25 and the freedom of movement throughout the country under Article 19(1)(d).

The petitioners alleged that the Gram Sabhas' actions were instigated by a state government circular issued on August 14, 2025, which called on Zila Panchayats in PESA areas to pass resolutions protecting “Jal, Jangal, Jameen” (water, forest, and land). They claimed this directive was misused to foster religious discrimination and hostility against the Christian community.

In response, the State of Chhattisgarh, represented by Additional Advocate General Y.S. Thakur, defended the Gram Sabhas' actions. The state argued that the village councils acted within the powers vested in them by the PESA Act and the associated Chhattisgarh PESA Rules, 2022, which empower them to preserve their community's traditions and cultural heritage. The state’s counsel clarified that the hoardings were not a blanket ban but were "only meant to prevent... those pastors... entering the village for the purpose of illegal conversion of the tribal peoples."

The state also drew a direct line from these precautionary measures to past social unrest, citing the 2023 riots in Narayanpur as an event that prompted tribal communities to act with caution.

The Court's Rationale: Balancing Rights and Protecting Culture

At the heart of the High Court's decision is a nuanced interpretation of Article 25. While affirming the constitutionally protected right to profess, practice, and propagate religion, the Bench underscored that this right is not absolute. Citing the seminal Supreme Court judgment in Rev. Stanislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977) , the court reiterated the long-held legal principle that the right to propagate religion does not include a fundamental right to convert another person.

The court observed, “Religious conversion, when voluntary and spiritual, is a legitimate exercise of conscience. However, when it becomes a calculated act of exploitation disguised as charity, it undermines both faith and freedom.”

The judgment delves deep into the socio-cultural impact of missionary activities, particularly in remote tribal belts. The court noted that while such activities historically began with noble aims of social upliftment, "some missionary groups" began using platforms like schools and hospitals as avenues for proselytization. It expressed grave concern over allegations of conversions procured through inducement.

"Among economically and socially deprived sections, especially Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes, this led to gradual religious conversion under the promise of better livelihoods, education, or equality... The menace arises when conversion ceases to be a matter of personal faith and becomes a result of inducement, manipulation, or exploitation of vulnerability," the Bench remarked.

The court further highlighted the divisive social consequences of such conversions within tribal communities. It observed that the adoption of new cultural practices by converts often leads to alienation from traditional rituals, resulting in community polarization, social boycotts, and sometimes violent conflict. This erosion of indigenous languages, customs, and worldview was deemed a significant threat.

Upholding the Power of the Gram Sabha

A crucial aspect of the ruling is its affirmation of the Gram Sabha's authority under the PESA Act. The court recognized the Gram Sabha as a constitutionally empowered body tasked with preserving the cultural identity and traditions of scheduled area communities.

In this context, the court found that the installation of cautionary hoardings to prevent conversions through fraudulent means or allurement could not be deemed unconstitutional. “The action appears to be a precautionary measure to protect the interest of indigenous tribes and local cultural heritage,” the Bench concluded.

By framing the hoardings as a measure against unlawful activities (i.e., conversion by force, fraud, or allurement, as prohibited under laws like the Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantrya Adhiniyam, 1968), the court distinguished them from a general prohibition against a specific religion.

Legal Implications and Future Trajectory

This judgment is poised to have far-reaching implications for legal practitioners and policymakers engaged with constitutional law, religious freedom, and tribal rights.

• Strengthening Community-Led Governance: The ruling significantly bolsters the autonomy of Gram Sabhas in PESA areas, empowering them to take proactive, albeit controversial, measures to safeguard their cultural identity. This could pave the way for similar resolutions in other tribal regions facing comparable social dynamics.
• Reinforcing the 'Stanislaus' Doctrine: By heavily relying on the Rev. Stanislaus precedent, the Chhattisgarh High Court has reinforced the legal distinction between propagation of faith and the act of conversion. This continues the judicial trend of interpreting Article 25 as a right that is subject to public order and does not sanction conversion by undue influence.
• Fueling the Anti-Conversion Law Debate: The court’s description of induced conversion as a "social menace" provides judicial weight to the arguments frequently made by proponents of stricter anti-conversion legislation across the country.
• Avenues for Redressal: While disposing of the petition, the court did not close all doors for the petitioners. It granted them the liberty to pursue alternative remedies available under the PESA Rules. Furthermore, the Bench directed that any individual facing threats to their life, liberty, or movement can seek protection from the jurisdictional police, who are obligated to act in accordance with the law.

Ultimately, the Chhattisgarh High Court's decision champions a vision where faith remains a matter of "conviction, not compulsion." It posits that the remedy to religious tension lies not in intolerance, but in ensuring that the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom is not misused as a tool for cultural coercion and social fragmentation.