On February 16, a bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta dismissed a petition filed by Digbal Tandi challenging resolutions passed by Gram Sabhas in tribal villages of Kanker district in Chhattisgarh.
The dispute arose after several villages in Scheduled Areas erected hoardings stating that the entry of pastors and priests for conversion-related activities was prohibited under the Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Areas (PESA) Act. The petitioner contended that these resolutions effectively barred Christian pastors and converted tribals from entering the villages, violating constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 19(1)(d), and 25.
Proceedings Before the Supreme Court
Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves appeared on behalf of the petitioner and argued that the High Court had exceeded the scope of the writ petition by making sweeping and adverse observations regarding Christian missionary activities without supporting material on record.
He submitted that the matter before the High Court was limited to the legality of the hoardings and not a broader adjudication on religious conversions. Gonsalves also referred to pending matters before the Supreme Court concerning alleged attacks on pastors and denial of burial rights to converted tribals. He claimed that there had been no convictions under the State’s anti-conversion law in the past decade and argued that the High Court’s remarks could have far-reaching consequences.
“You can’t stop me from doing my Sunday prayer meeting. And the High Court says it’s not unconstitutional,” he contended, asserting that the judgment risked normalising restrictions on religious practice.
Appearing for the State of Chhattisgarh, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta countered that several issues raised before the Supreme Court were not part of the pleadings before the High Court. He emphasised that the original petition had sought removal of the hoardings and that the High Court had directed the petitioner to approach the concerned Gram Sabhas for redress.
Supreme Court hears plea against Chhattisgarh High Court order which observed that alleged missionary-led conversions of poor and tribal populations through “inducement” and “manipulation” disturb social harmony and cultural identity.
Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep… pic.twitter.com/mdzYSZNxZ5
— Bar and Bench (@barandbench) February 16, 2026
The Supreme Court agreed with the State’s position. The bench observed that the writ petition before the High Court was limited in scope and noted that the petitioner had been asked to avail of statutory remedies before the Gram Sabha. “Please see the writ petition before the High Court and the relief claimed. You have been asked to go to the Gram Sabha,” the Court remarked while dismissing the plea.
With this, the apex court effectively upheld the reasoning and observations of the High Court.
Background of the Case
The controversy stems from resolutions passed in eight villages in Kanker district — Kudal, Parvi, Junwani, Ghota, Ghotiya, Habechur, Musurputta, and Sulagi. The villagers installed banners stating that entry of pastors and priests intending to conduct conversion activities was prohibited.
Digbal Tandi approached the High Court claiming that these actions amounted to a ban on Christian religious practice and movement within the villages. He also alleged instances of social boycott, denial of burial rights, and forced displacement of Christian tribals.
A division bench led by Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru declined to prohibit the hoardings. The High Court held that banners cautioning against illegal or forcible conversions could not, per se, be termed unconstitutional.
High Court’s Observations on Conversion
In a detailed judgment, the High Court examined the broader context of religious conversion in India. It acknowledged that Article 25 guarantees the right to profess, practice and propagate religion but clarified that this right is subject to public order, morality, and health.
The Court observed that while missionary activity historically included social upliftment efforts such as education and healthcare, concerns have been raised about instances where such activities were allegedly used as platforms for proselytisation among economically vulnerable communities.
According to the High Court, when conversion results from inducement, coercion, or exploitation of vulnerability rather than personal conviction, it may amount to cultural coercion. Such practices, the Court noted, have led to social polarisation within tribal communities and, at times, tensions and clashes.
Importantly, the High Court clarified that it found no material on record to suggest that the hoardings authorised discrimination against Christians as a community. Rather, the banners were intended to prevent conversion-related activities perceived as coercive.
The Court also pointed out that the petitioner had not exhausted alternative statutory remedies before invoking the High Court’s writ jurisdiction and directed him to first approach the concerned Gram Sabhas.
Constitutional Balance and Tribal Autonomy
The Supreme Court’s refusal to interfere reinforces two key principles. First, Article 25 rights are not absolute and must operate within constitutional limits. Second, that Gram Sabhas in Scheduled Areas possess statutory authority under the PESA framework to regulate local affairs in order to preserve social harmony and cultural identity.
The ruling may have broader implications for similar disputes in tribal regions where tensions arise over conversion-related activities. By upholding the High Court’s reasoning, the Supreme Court has underscored the need to balance individual religious freedoms with community rights and public order considerations.
At the heart of the case lies a constitutional tension: the right to propagate religion versus the right of indigenous communities to protect their cultural continuity. With its latest order, the Supreme Court has chosen not to unsettle the High Court’s attempt to navigate that delicate balance within the framework of existing law.
