The Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld the legality of hoardings installed in several villages of Kanker district that restrict the entry of pastors and “converted Christians,” ruling that such signage, intended to prevent forcible or induced religious conversions, does not violate the Constitution. The judgment comes in the backdrop of ongoing debates over religious freedom, tribal rights, and local governance under the Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA).

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru delivered the order on October 28, 2025, while disposing of a petition filed by Kanker resident Digbal Tandi. The petitioner had challenged the hoardings, arguing that they amounted to segregation of Christian residents and their religious leaders from the mainstream village community, creating a climate of fear and discrimination. He also claimed that the circulars issued by the Panchayat Department, promoting the slogan “Hamari Parampara Hamari Virasat” (“Our Tradition, Our Heritage”), were being misused to bar Christian pastors and converts from entering the villages.

The High Court, however, rejected these arguments, emphasizing that the installation of the hoardings by Gram Sabhas was a constitutional exercise of powers to safeguard indigenous communities and local cultural heritage. The bench noted, “The installation of the hoardings for preventing forcible conversion by way of allurement or fraudulent means cannot be termed as unconstitutional.” The court further stated that such preventive measures are intended to protect tribal communities from exploitation disguised as religious outreach, which could undermine both faith and freedom if conducted coercively or deceptively.

According to the petition, at least eight villages in Kanker district had erected such hoardings, creating apprehension among Christian residents who had previously visited these areas freely. The petitioner argued that the circulars and resolutions by the Panchayat Department under the PESA framework were being misused to promote religious discrimination rather than to preserve cultural heritage. The plea also highlighted past incidents of communal tension, alleging that such measures could deepen social divides.

Defending the state, Additional Advocate General YS Thakur argued that the Gram Sabhas had acted well within their powers under the PESA Act, which allows tribal councils to take measures to preserve local traditions and protect the cultural identity of indigenous communities. Thakur clarified that the hoardings were targeted specifically at pastors of the Christian religion from other villages who were entering local villages with the intent of converting tribal populations through inducements or fraudulent means. “The hoardings installed by the concerned Gram Sabha are only for the limited purpose of prohibiting those Pastors who seek to engage in illegal conversion of tribal peoples,” he said. Thakur also cited prior law and order issues, including a 2023 incident in Narayanpur district when tribals vandalized a church and assaulted police officers during tensions over religious conversion activities.

In its judgment, the High Court made a distinction between voluntary spiritual conversion, which is a legitimate exercise of conscience, and conversion through inducement, exploitation, or coercion, which it termed a social menace. The bench noted, “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 court emphasized that forced or induced conversions not only violate individual autonomy but also threaten the unity and cultural continuity of indigenous communities.

The bench also observed that the petitioner had not exhausted statutory remedies before approaching the High Court. “A party must firstly exhaust the statutory alternative remedies available before approaching the High Court seeking redressal of any grievance,” the order stated. This observation underscored the importance of following procedural norms, particularly when contesting decisions made under PESA, which grants Gram Sabhas certain powers to regulate activities within their jurisdictions, including the protection of local traditions and culture.

The High Court’s ruling reinforces the legal position that Gram Sabhas, as autonomous bodies under the PESA Act, have the authority to take preventive measures against external interference that could threaten the social and cultural fabric of tribal communities. By validating the hoardings, the court clarified that the intent of such measures—to prevent conversion by allurement or fraudulent means—falls within constitutional bounds and does not infringe on religious freedom when appropriately implemented.

Legal experts note that the judgment could have wider implications for the regulation of religious activities in Scheduled Areas across India. While it upholds the right of indigenous communities to protect their cultural heritage, it also signals the judiciary’s recognition of the delicate balance between freedom of religion and the protection of vulnerable communities from coercive or exploitative practices. The court’s decision may serve as a reference point for other cases where local communities assert the right to regulate religious conversion in their areas under PESA.

The Chhattisgarh High Court judgment also touches on broader questions of social harmony and the responsibilities of religious organizations. By highlighting the potential social consequences of conversions carried out through inducement, the court acknowledged that such practices can disrupt communal relations, provoke conflict, and erode trust within local populations. The ruling thus frames the debate around religious conversions not merely as a matter of individual choice, but also as a collective concern for community cohesion and cultural preservation.

The state government welcomed the ruling, stating that it reinforces the authority of Gram Sabhas to maintain social order and protect tribal traditions. Officials emphasized that the hoardings are preventive, not punitive, and are designed to ensure that faith remains a matter of personal conviction rather than coercion or compulsion. This clarification seeks to address concerns raised by minority groups while underscoring the government’s commitment to upholding law and order in tribal regions.

In conclusion, the Chhattisgarh High Court’s ruling in favor of the hoardings in Kanker villages represents a significant affirmation of the powers granted to Gram Sabhas under the PESA framework. By upholding the constitutionality of restrictions aimed at preventing forced or induced religious conversions, the court has recognized the importance of protecting indigenous communities’ cultural heritage while maintaining the delicate balance between individual religious freedoms and collective social welfare. The judgment underscores the legal and moral responsibility of both the state and local governing bodies to ensure that religious conversions are conducted voluntarily and without coercion, thereby preserving the social, cultural, and communal integrity of India’s Scheduled Areas.