Hoardings barring pastors' & converted Christians' entry to village not illegal: HC

The order dated October 28 was passed on petitions filed by Digbal Tandi of Kanker district and Narendra Bhavani of Bastar district. The petitioners had raised the issue of the alleged segregation of Christians and their religious leaders from the mainstream village community.

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).

The petitioners claimed 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 was competent to protect the identity and culture of the village.

They alleged that 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.

Similar hoardings were erected in Kudal, Parvi, Junwani, Ghota, Havechur, Musurputta and Sulangi villages, they added.

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.

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.

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. 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). 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.