Chhattisgarh High Court terms village hoardings restricting entry to converted Christians as ‘precautionary’

Bilaspur: The Chhattisgarh High Court has observed that hoardings installed in certain villages barring the entry of converted Christians appear to have been put up as a “precautionary measure” by the respective gram sabhas.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru made the observation while hearing petitions challenging the legality of such signboards in tribal-dominated areas.

Background of the case

The petitions alleged that several gram sabhas had installed hoardings stating that individuals who had converted to Christianity would not be permitted entry into the village. The petitioners argued that such restrictions were unconstitutional and violated fundamental rights, including the right to freedom of religion and movement.

They sought directions from the High Court to remove the hoardings and restrain village authorities from enforcing such restrictions.

Court’s observations

During the hearing, the Bench noted that prima facie, the hoardings appeared to have been installed as a precautionary step by local gram sabhas. The Court observed that the matter required careful examination of the facts, including whether any coercive action was being taken against individuals on the basis of religious conversion.

The Bench indicated that merely putting up hoardings would need to be examined in the broader context of law and order concerns cited by the local bodies.

State’s stand

The State government submitted that it would look into the matter and ensure that no individual’s constitutional rights were infringed. It informed the Court that authorities would verify whether the hoardings had any legal backing or were leading to discriminatory practices.

Next steps

The High Court has sought responses from the concerned authorities and listed the matter for further hearing. The Court emphasised that while gram sabhas have certain powers under local governance laws, such powers cannot override constitutional guarantees.

The case is likely to examine the balance between local self-governance decisions and the protection of fundamental rights under the Constitution.