New Delhi: In a significant judgment blending constitutional interpretation with protection of indigenous rights, Chhattisgarh High Court has held that the freedom to propagate religion does not extend to religious conversion through inducement, coercion or fraudulent means.
Hearing two public interest litigations, a division bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru last week upheld the actions of certain gram sabhas in the state’s Kanker district which had erected hoardings prohibiting the entry of pastors and “converted Christians” into their villages.
The court reasoned that these measures were adopted in exercise of the gram sabhas’ statutory powers under the Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act 1996 (PESA Act) and the Chhattisgarh PESA Rules, 2022, to preserve tribal culture and identity.
The court expressed grave concern over what it termed as “conversion by inducement”, describing it as a social menace that corrodes both faith and social harmony.
“Conversion ceases to be a matter of personal faith when it becomes a result of inducement, manipulation, or exploitation of vulnerability,” the bench remarked, highlighting allegations of certain missionary groups targeting impoverished and illiterate tribal families in remote Chhattisgarh villages.
The judgment elaborated that such conversions, often facilitated by promises of money, education, healthcare, or employment, amount to cultural coercion rather than genuine spiritual conviction.
“Among economically and socially deprived sections, especially Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes, this leads to gradual religious conversion under the promise of better livelihoods, education, or equality. What was once seen as service becomes, in many cases, a subtle instrument of religious expansion,” the court observed.
It noted that the phenomenon has created social divisions and polarisation within tribal communities, as converted individuals often adopt new cultural practices and withdraw from traditional communal life, leading to “tension, social boycotts, and even violent clashes”.
Also Read: ‘Can’t incentivise bias against dark skin’ — Chhattisgarh HC dismisses man’s plea for divorce
Freedom to propagate, not convert
Article 25 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the fundamental right to freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practice, and propagate religion. However, this right is not absolute; it is subject to public order, morality and health.
The HC ruling relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s landmark constitution bench judgment in Rev. Stanislaus vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors (1977), which upheld the constitutional validity of anti-conversion laws, ruling that the right to “propagate” religion under Article 25 does not include the right to “convert” another person.
“The term ‘propagate’ means to transmit or spread one’s religion by exposition of its tenets. It does not grant the right to convert others, as such an act would violate the freedom of conscience guaranteed to all citizens,” the HC reiterated.
Accordingly, the court held that the gram sabhas’ preventive measures—hoardings cautioning against religious inducement—cannot be deemed unconstitutional when their intent is to safeguard tribal culture and ensure public order.
Tribal self-governance and cultural protection
A central question in the case was whether the gram sabhas possessed the authority to issue such restrictions under the PESA Act, a law enacted to extend self-governance to tribal areas listed under the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution.
The court clarified that the Act’s framework confers autonomous decision-making powers upon gram sabhas in Scheduled Areas to preserve and protect tribal customs and traditions and to safeguard community resources in villages.
Referring to Rule 6(10) of the Chhattisgarh PESA Rules, 2022, the state government argued that the gram sabhas acted within their mandate to “protect local cultural heritage from any kind of destructive behaviour”. The bench concurred, observing that the erection of “general cautionary hoardings” intended to prevent fraudulent or coercive conversion falls squarely within the gram sabha’s preventive powers.
“The installation of the hoardings for preventing forcible conversion by way of allurement or fraudulent means cannot be termed as unconstitutional. The hoardings appear to have been installed as a precautionary measure to protect the interests of indigenous tribals and their cultural heritage,” the judgment read.
Petitioners’ claims and court dismissal
The petitioners, practising Christians, had argued that the gram sabha resolutions and village hoardings violated their fundamental rights under Article 25 (freedom of religion) and Article 19(1)(d) (freedom of movement).
They alleged that the resolutions were effectively state-sponsored, referring to a circular issued by the Director, Panchayat, on 14 August, 2025, instructing district officials to promote resolutions protecting “jal, jangal, jameen” (water, forests, land).
The court, however, declined to entertain the petitions on technical grounds, holding that the petitioners had not yet exhausted the alternative statutory remedy under Rule 14 of the PESA Rules, 2022, which provides for appeals against gram sabha decisions first before the gram sabha itself and then before the sub-divisional officer (revenue).
The bench thus disposed of both PILs, granting liberty to the petitioners to pursue the appropriate statutory remedies. It also clarified that “in case the petitioners or any individual apprehend threat to life, liberty, or movement, they may seek protection from the jurisdictional police, which shall be considered in accordance with law”.
In its concluding remarks, the court reflected on the delicate balance between freedom of religion and protection of cultural identity.
Its judgement underscored that the state must not suppress faith but must ensure that “faith remains a matter of conviction, not compulsion”.
“Religious conversion, when voluntary and spiritual, is a legitimate exercise of conscience. However, when it becomes a calculated act of exploitation disguised as charity, it undermines both faith and freedom. The so-called ‘conversion by inducement’ by certain missionary groups is not merely a religious concern – it is a social menace that threatens the unity and cultural continuity of India’s indigenous communities.”
The court also remarked that religious conversion can also influence “political representation”. “Since certain constitutional benefits, such as Scheduled Tribe or Scheduled Caste status, are linked with religion, conversion may alter demographic patterns and political equations, adding another layer of complexity. India’s secular fabric thrives on coexistence and respect for diversity,” it said.
(Edited by Nida Fatima Siddiqui)
What a third class , it is right to convert , article are physio libiral can do anything for money.. bosodige.. I can see PIG community propagate this conversion.