<p>Bilaspur: The <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/tags/chhattisgarh-high-court">Chhattisgarh High Court</a> has disposed of two petitions seeking the removal of hoardings prohibiting entry to pastors and "converted Christians" in eight villages, holding that they were installed to prevent forced conversions through allurement or fraudulent means and cannot be termed as unconstitutional.</p><p>The division bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru observed that the hoardings appear to have been installed by the concerned gram sabhas as a precautionary measure to protect the interests of indigenous tribals and local cultural heritage.</p><p>The order dated October 28 was passed on petitions filed by one Digbal Tandi of Kanker district and Narendra Bhavani of Bastar district.</p><p>The petitioners raised the issue of the alleged segregation of Christians and their religious leaders from the mainstream village community.</p>.From Naxal violence to symbol of prosperity and security, Chhattisgarh's journey inspiring: PM Narendra Modi.<p>The pleas alleged that the Panchayat Department instructed the zilla panchayat, janpad panchayat and eventually the gram panchayat to pass resolution/oath in the name and style "Hamari Parampara Hamari Virasat" (our tradition, our heritage) and the real intention of the circular to the gram panchayat was to instruct them to pass a resolution prohibiting the entry of pastors and "converted Christians" in the village.</p><p>The Ghotiya gram panchayat in Bhanupratappur tehsil of Kanker put up a hoarding stating that the village comes under the 5th Schedule Area and provisions of Panchayat (Extension to Schedule Area) Act, 1996 (PESA Act) are applicable and that the gram sabha is competent to protect the identity and culture of the village, the petitioners claimed.</p><p>They alleged that based on the resolution of the gram sabha, pastors and converted Christians from other villages are prevented from entering Ghotiya for religious programmes or conversions, creating a sense of fear among persons from the minority community.</p><p>According to the petitioners, similar hoardings were erected in Kudal, Parvi, Junwani, Ghota, Havechur, Musurputta and Sulangi villages.</p><p>Counsels for petitioners argued that gram sabhas cannot pass resolutions that were against the Constitution and the law.</p><p>They contended that the gram sabha resolutions and these hoardings violate Article 25 of the Constitution of India that guarantees freedom of religion.</p>.Masked shooters target Congress leader's office in Chhattisgarh; 2 kin injured.<p>Additional Advocate General Y S Thakur submitted to the court that the PESA rules empower the gram sabha to protect the system of local cultural heritage, including places of deities, worship systems, institutions (Gotul and Dhumkudia) and humanistic social practices from any destructive behaviour.</p><p>It is mentioned in the said hoardings that the Scheduled Tribes residing in the village are being illegally converted through allurements. Thus causing harm to the local cultural heritage and tribal culture, which is in complete violation of PESA Rules, he said.</p><p>Thakur pointed out that the hoardings were for the limited purpose of prohibiting only those pastors of the Christian religion from other areas who were entering the village for illegal conversion of tribals.</p><p>He further stated that if a person is not satisfied with the gram sabha's decision, he could have appealed before the sub-divisional officer (Revenue).</p><p>However, the petitioners, without exhausting the remedy, filed the pleas in the nature of pro bono publico, and therefore, the same is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed, Thakur said.</p><p>Citing Supreme Court judgments, the court ruled, "the installation of the hoardings for preventing forcible conversion by way of allurement or fraudulent means cannot be termed as unconstitutional".</p><p>The court also observed that the petitioners should have first exhausted the statutory alternative remedy available before approaching the high court seeking redressal.</p><p>It stated that if the petitioners have any apprehension that they will be restrained from entering their villages or if a threat perception exists, they may seek protection from the police.</p>
<p>Bilaspur: The <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/tags/chhattisgarh-high-court">Chhattisgarh High Court</a> has disposed of two petitions seeking the removal of hoardings prohibiting entry to pastors and "converted Christians" in eight villages, holding that they were installed to prevent forced conversions through allurement or fraudulent means and cannot be termed as unconstitutional.</p><p>The division bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru observed that the hoardings appear to have been installed by the concerned gram sabhas as a precautionary measure to protect the interests of indigenous tribals and local cultural heritage.</p><p>The order dated October 28 was passed on petitions filed by one Digbal Tandi of Kanker district and Narendra Bhavani of Bastar district.</p><p>The petitioners raised the issue of the alleged segregation of Christians and their religious leaders from the mainstream village community.</p>.From Naxal violence to symbol of prosperity and security, Chhattisgarh's journey inspiring: PM Narendra Modi.<p>The pleas alleged that the Panchayat Department instructed the zilla panchayat, janpad panchayat and eventually the gram panchayat to pass resolution/oath in the name and style "Hamari Parampara Hamari Virasat" (our tradition, our heritage) and the real intention of the circular to the gram panchayat was to instruct them to pass a resolution prohibiting the entry of pastors and "converted Christians" in the village.</p><p>The Ghotiya gram panchayat in Bhanupratappur tehsil of Kanker put up a hoarding stating that the village comes under the 5th Schedule Area and provisions of Panchayat (Extension to Schedule Area) Act, 1996 (PESA Act) are applicable and that the gram sabha is competent to protect the identity and culture of the village, the petitioners claimed.</p><p>They alleged that based on the resolution of the gram sabha, pastors and converted Christians from other villages are prevented from entering Ghotiya for religious programmes or conversions, creating a sense of fear among persons from the minority community.</p><p>According to the petitioners, similar hoardings were erected in Kudal, Parvi, Junwani, Ghota, Havechur, Musurputta and Sulangi villages.</p><p>Counsels for petitioners argued that gram sabhas cannot pass resolutions that were against the Constitution and the law.</p><p>They contended that the gram sabha resolutions and these hoardings violate Article 25 of the Constitution of India that guarantees freedom of religion.</p>.Masked shooters target Congress leader's office in Chhattisgarh; 2 kin injured.<p>Additional Advocate General Y S Thakur submitted to the court that the PESA rules empower the gram sabha to protect the system of local cultural heritage, including places of deities, worship systems, institutions (Gotul and Dhumkudia) and humanistic social practices from any destructive behaviour.</p><p>It is mentioned in the said hoardings that the Scheduled Tribes residing in the village are being illegally converted through allurements. Thus causing harm to the local cultural heritage and tribal culture, which is in complete violation of PESA Rules, he said.</p><p>Thakur pointed out that the hoardings were for the limited purpose of prohibiting only those pastors of the Christian religion from other areas who were entering the village for illegal conversion of tribals.</p><p>He further stated that if a person is not satisfied with the gram sabha's decision, he could have appealed before the sub-divisional officer (Revenue).</p><p>However, the petitioners, without exhausting the remedy, filed the pleas in the nature of pro bono publico, and therefore, the same is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed, Thakur said.</p><p>Citing Supreme Court judgments, the court ruled, "the installation of the hoardings for preventing forcible conversion by way of allurement or fraudulent means cannot be termed as unconstitutional".</p><p>The court also observed that the petitioners should have first exhausted the statutory alternative remedy available before approaching the high court seeking redressal.</p><p>It stated that if the petitioners have any apprehension that they will be restrained from entering their villages or if a threat perception exists, they may seek protection from the police.</p>