Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Chhattisgarh Gram Sabha's Hoardings Banning Entry Of Pastors, Converts Into Tribal Village

The Supreme Court today dismissed a challenge to the Chhattisgarh High Court judgment which upheld a Gram Sabha's action of erecting 'hoardings/notice boards' at certain village entry points, whereby the entry of Christian Pastors and converted Christians was barred.

Apparently, the Gram Sabha action was intended to prevent religious conversion of villagers through coercion or inducement.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves (for petitioner) and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.

The bench took note of para 34 of the impugned judgment, which gave liberty to the petitioner to take recourse of remedy before the competent authority (Gram Sabha).

SG Tushar Mehta urged that the petitioner's plea before the High Court was limited. But before the Supreme Court, several new facts and dimensions had been added, and as such, he could again approach the High Court.

Gonsalves, on the other hand, highlighted to the bench that the prohibition on entry of Christian pastors and converted Christians into the village was not held unconstitutional by the High Court. Besides, the High Court commented on missionary activities in tribal areas based on "no material". Then what is the point of going to Gram Sabha or anywhere else, he questioned.

The senior counsel also referred to a case pending before the CJI bench, pertaining to alleged 700 attacks on pastors while doing prayer meetings. He cited another case pertaining to tribals who converted to Christianity and were not allowed to be buried in the village. A third petition, he said, is coming up before the Court on Wednesday, which relates to exhumation and relocation of bodies of tribals who converted to Christianity.

Gonsalves also claimed that there has not been even a single conviction in a religious conversion case in the last 10 years in Chhattisgarh. However, the bench was not convinced and dismissed the plea.

"You should have approached the appropriate authority under the Rules...they would have examined the matter on affidavits, on material, on evidence", remarked Justice Nath.

Case Title: DIGBAL TANDI Versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS., Diary No. 64814-2025