The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, in a common order dated October 28, 2025, has reinforced the legal principle that petitioners must first exhaust available statutory remedies before approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
A Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, applied this principle while disposing of two Public Interest Litigations (PILs). The petitions had challenged hoardings erected by Gram Panchayats in Kanker District prohibiting the entry of Christian Pastors. The Court directed the petitioners to the “statutory efficacious alternative remedy” available under the PESA Rules, 2022.
The Court’s Rationale for Disposal
The High Court’s decision was primarily based on the procedural ground of an available alternative remedy. The judgment’s Head Note explicitly stated: “A party must firstly exhaust the statutory alternative remedy available before approaching the High Court seeking redressal of any grievance.”
The Bench identified the specific remedy in Rule 14 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Upbandh (Anusuchit Kshetron par Vistar) Niyam, 2022 (PESA Rules). This rule allows an aggrieved party to appeal to the Gram Sabha and, if not satisfied, to the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue).
The Court held that since the petitioners had not pursued this course of action, it was not inclined to entertain the writ petitions directly. The order stated:
“Both petitions challenge actions of Gram Sabhas functioning under the PESA Rules of 2022. Rule 14 thereof provides a statutory remedy… In view of such alternative statutory remedy, we are not inclined to entertain these writ petitions directly under Article 226 of the Constitution.”
Background of the Case
The PILs (WPPIL No. 83 of 2025 and WPPIL No. 86 of 2025) were filed over hoardings in several villages in Kanker District, a 5th Schedule Area. These hoardings prohibited the entry of “Christian Pastors” and “so called ‘Converted Christians'”.
The petitioners alleged this created a “sense of fear” and violated their fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(d) (right to move freely) and Article 25 (freedom of religion). They also apprehended the hoardings were erected at the instance of government authorities, citing a circular on preserving cultural heritage.
Arguments of the Petitioners
Counsel for the petitioners argued that the Gram Sabha resolutions and hoardings were unconstitutional and contrary to the PESA Rules. It was submitted that pastors visiting family “were badly beaten by the local people and their house were also get demolished,” and that the PESA Act does not grant “power… for imposing restriction on the entry and exit of the villages.”
Arguments of the Respondents
The State, represented by the Additional Advocate General, countered that:
- The government circular “nowhere instructs or instigates” religious hatred but was for “protecting the traditional culture.”
- Rule 6(10) of the PESA Rules empowers the Gram Sabha “to protect the system of local cultural heritage… from any kind of destructive behavior,” and the hoardings were a “precautionary measures” against “illegal conversion.”
- The petitions were not maintainable due to the failure to exhaust the alternative remedy under Rule 14.
- Past incidents of violence “due to the issue of illegal conversion” made the Gram Sabhas’ actions a step to maintain public order.
Court’s Other Observations
Before disposing of the petitions, the Court also discussed the substantive issues raised. It noted that “the misuse of this liberty [freedom of religion] through coercion, inducement, or deception has become a matter of grave concern” and called “conversion by inducement” a “social menace.”
The Bench heavily relied on the Constitution Bench judgment in Rev. Stanislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (1977) 1 SCC 677, which upheld anti-conversion laws. The High Court quoted the Stanislaus judgment, which held that the right to propagate religion “is not the right to convert another person to one’s own religion.”
Based on this, the High Court observed, “In view of the above observations made by the Apex Court, the installation of the hoardings for preventing forcible conversion by way of allurement or fraudulent means cannot be termed as unconstitutional.”
Final Decision
Despite its observations on the merits, the High Court disposed of both PILs on the procedural ground of the alternative remedy. The final directions were:
- The petitioners are at liberty to avail the remedy under Rule 14 of the Chhattisgarh PESA Rules, 2022.
- In case any individual apprehends a “threat to life, liberty, or movement,” they may seek protection from the jurisdictional police.
- Any observations made in the order shall not prejudice the petitioners’ case if they pursue the alternative remedy.
- The security amount deposited by the petitioners was ordered to be forfeited.
