NEW DELHI (India): The Supreme Court of India on Monday rejected a petition challenging restrictions on the entry of Christian missionaries and pastors into certain tribal villages in Chhattisgarh state of India, affirming the authority of local village bodies to take such measures.
A bench consisting of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta declined to interfere with a recent judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court that upheld the placement of hoardings at village entrances cautioning against proselytization activities.
The case stems from resolutions passed by Gram Sabhas in eight villages across Kanker district of the state, where tribal councils erected large signs stating that the entry of pastors and Christian workers intending to promote religious conversion was prohibited. The signs were displayed under slogans referencing the preservation of tribal traditions and cultural heritage. The petitioners argued that these measures amounted to discrimination and violated fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, including freedom of religion and movement.
Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, representing the petitioner Digbal Tandi, contended before the Supreme Court that the High Court had made adverse observations about missionary activities without sufficient material on record. He stressed that the writ petition before the High Court was narrowly focused on the removal of the hoardings and should not have contained broader commentary on missionary conduct. The petitioner cited concerns about alleged attacks on pastors at prayer meetings and claims that tribal converts were denied burial rights within their villages.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State of Chhattisgarh, argued that many of the claims raised were not part of the original pleadings before the High Court. He emphasized that the High Court proceedings were confined to the specific issue of hoardings and that petitioners were directed to approach the relevant Gram Sabhas for redress. The Supreme Court agreed with the state’s position, noting that the scope of the writ petition was limited and that alternate remedies through local bodies had not been exhausted.
The Supreme Court’s decision effectively upholds the High Court’s reasoning, leaving intact its observations about the impact of alleged inducement conversions on social harmony and tribal cultural identity. The top court reiterated that petitioners should first seek solutions from Gram Sabha authorities as directed by the lower court.
The High Court judgment had held that installing hoardings to warn villagers against illegal or forcible conversions could not automatically be deemed unconstitutional. It recognized that while the Indian Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, including the right to propagate one’s faith, this freedom is not absolute and may be subject to restrictions aimed at protecting public order, morality, and health.
The High Court’s ruling highlighted that missionary activity in India has historical roots in social efforts to uplift such as education and healthcare. However, it observed that certain groups had allegedly shifted focus over time towards proselytisation among economically and socially vulnerable sections, including Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes. The court described such alleged practices as “cultural coercion” when they involved inducement or exploitation of vulnerability, potentially leading to social divisions and tensions within tribal communities.
Gram Sabhas in villages such as Kudal, Parvi, Junwani, Ghota, Ghotiya, Habechur, Musurputta, and Sulagi adopted the hoardings under provisions of the Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, which grants tribal councils specific powers over community resources and cultural preservation. The High Court had rejected claims that the hoardings amounted to unlawful discrimination, noting that they were intended to deter conversion activities rather than prohibit movement or residency of any individual based on faith.
The Supreme Court’s rejection of the plea affirms the role of tribal self-governance in safeguarding community practices and upholding local decisions in matters perceived as affecting cultural continuity.
Click here to follow our WhatsApp channel and get instant updates
