The Supreme Court of India on Monday dismissed a plea challenging village hoardings in Chhattisgarh that restrict the entry of Christian pastors and priests, citing concerns over forced religious conversions.
A Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta upheld an earlier order of the Chhattisgarh High Court, which had directed the petitioners to seek relief before the statutory authority under the state’s PESA Rules.
The High Court, in its October 28, 2025 judgment, had granted liberty to approach the appropriate authority under the Panchayat Upbandh (Anusuchit Kshetron par Vistar) Niyam, framed under the Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Areas Act. The Act empowers Gram Sabhas in Scheduled Areas to protect land, resources, culture, and community interests.
Appearing for the state, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the original petition before the High Court had limited prayers, while the appeal before the Supreme Court raised new facts, documents, and legal dimensions that were not previously examined.
Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, representing the appellants, submitted that a general cautionary hoarding aimed at preventing illegal religious conversions could not, by itself, be considered unconstitutional. He also contended that the High Court had made extensive observations on religious conversion without sufficient material evidence on record.
During the hearing, Mehta referred to the Supreme Court’s 1977 Constitution Bench judgment in Rev Stainislaus vs State of Madhya Pradesh, which held that the right to propagate religion under Article 25 of the Constitution does not include conversion through force, inducement, or fraud.
Justice Nath observed that disputes involving factual assessment and local conditions should first be examined by the statutory authority under the PESA Rules. He noted that the designated authority was better placed to assess evidence and determine whether the hoardings violated constitutional or statutory provisions.
Before the High Court, the petitioners had alleged that Gram Sabhas misused their powers under the PESA framework to promote religious hostility against Christians. The High Court, while acknowledging the constitutional protection of voluntary religious conversion, expressed concern over conversions carried out through coercion or inducement, stating that such practices could disrupt social harmony and cultural continuity in tribal areas.
The Supreme Court’s dismissal leaves the petitioners free to pursue their remedies before the competent authority under the PESA Rules.