While observing that a general cautionary hoarding intended to prevent illegal conversion activities cannot, per se, be termed unconstitutional, the Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld the validity of the hoarding installed by the Gram Sabha prohibiting the entry of Pastors in order to prevent forced religious conversions.

The Court observed that “conversion by inducement” by certain missionary groups is not merely a religious concern, it is a social menace.

The Petitioners approached the High Court, raising the issue of segregation of the Christian community and their religious leaders from the mainstream village community. The petitioners challenged the raising of hoardings in 8 Villages, thereby prohibiting the entry of Pastors and 'Converted Christians'.

Referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in Rev. Stainislaus v. State Of Madhya Pradesh (1977), the Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta held, “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 appears to have been installed by the concerned Gram Sabhas as a precautionary measure to protect the interest of indigenous tribals and local cultural heritage.”

"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 so-called “conversion by inducement” by certain missionary groups is not merely a religious concern, it is a social menace that threatens the unity and cultural continuity of India’s indigenous communities. The remedy lies not in intolerance, but in ensuring that faith remains a matter of conviction, not compulsion.", the Court added.


Advocate Arpit Lall represented the Petitioner, while Additional Advocate General Y.S.Thakur represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The respondent authorities had circulated a format of resolution, in the Kanker District of Chhattisgarh, wherein the respondent authorities, through the Department of Panchayat, were instructing the Zila Panchayat and Janpad Panchayat and eventually the Gram Panchayat to pass a resolution/oath in the name and style "Hamari Parampara Hamari Virasať". According to the petitioners, the real intention of circulating this circular to the Gram Panchayat was to instruct them to pass a resolution prohibiting the entry of Christian Pastors and the so-called 'Converted Christians' in the village. 8 Villages of Kanker District had erected hoardings which said that the entry of Pastors and 'Converted Christians' was prohibited in the village. It was the case of the petitioners that these hoardings created a sense of fear among persons of the Christian minority, and they had in a way suspended the fundamental rights of conscience and free movement of the villagers who belong to the Christian religion.

Reasoning

Highlighting how religious conversion has long been a sensitive issue in India’s sociopolitical landscape, the Bench stated that while the Constitution guarantees every citizen the freedom to profess, practice, and propagate religion, the misuse of this liberty through coercion, inducement, or deception has become a matter of grave concern. The Bench noted that in remote tribal belts, missionaries are often accused of targeting illiterate and impoverished families, offering them monetary aid, free education, medical care, or employment in exchange for conversion. “Such practices distort the spirit of voluntary faith and amount to cultural coercion. This process has also led to deep social divisions within tribal communities. Tribals converted to Christianity often adopt new cultural practices, distancing themselves from traditional rituals and communal festivals. As a result, villages become polarized, leading to tension, social boycotts, and sometimes even violent clashes”, it added.

The Bench found that the impugned hoardings were installed by respective Gram Sabhas exercising powers under the PESA framework. The State’s circular dated August 14, 2025, primarily called upon Gram Sabhas to preserve their traditional culture and social ethos. No material was placed on record to indicate that the circular authorises discrimination against any religious group.

“The Gram Sabha is a constitutionally recognized body under the PESA Act and has been conferred specific powers to manage community resources and safeguard tribal traditions. These powers, however, must operate within the limits of the Constitution of India. The expression “right to propagate religion” under Article 25 of the Constitution, as interpreted in Rev. Stainislaus (supra), does not extend to converting another person through inducement, force, or fraudulent means. The Act of 1968 prohibits such activities. Therefore, a general cautionary hoarding intended to prevent illegal conversion activities cannot, per se, be termed unconstitutional”, the order read.

Referring to the photographs of the hoardings, the Bench noticed that the message displayed by the Gram Sabha, Ghotiya, was that the Pastor and Padre of Christian faith were restrained from entering the village if they intended to organize any religious/conversion activities. “There is no prohibition of any people belonging to Christian faith if they are residents of the said village, as such, the apprehension of the petitioners are unfounded that they are prohibited from entering their villages. The circular dated 14.08.2025 nowhere instructs or instigates either to install hoardings or to instigate the villagers to spread religious hatred against the members of the Christian community and the converted Christians. The same has been issued only for the purpose of protecting the traditional culture and heritage of the Scheduled Tribes Community”, it said.

Thus, the Bench disposed of the Petition by holding that the petitioners were at liberty to avail the remedy under Rule 14 of the Chhattisgarh PESA Rules, 2022 before the competent authority. “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”, it ordered.

Cause Title: Digbal Tandi v. State Of Chhattisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2025:CGHC:52449-DB)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocate Kishore Narayan

Respondent: Additional Advocate General Y.S.Thakur, Advocates Sangharsh Pandey, Anupam Dubey, B. Gopa Kumar, Himanshu Pandey, Vivek Kumar Agrawal, Jay Singh, Rohit Sharma

Click here to read/download Judgment


Chhattisgarh High CourtJustice Ramesh Sinha

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.