The petitions were filed by residents of the district who argued that the banners effectively segregated Christian converts and their religious leaders, impinging on rights to freedom of religion and movement under Articles 25 and 19 of the Constitution. The villages named in the pleas include Kudal, Parvi, Junwani, Ghota, Ghotiya, Havechur, Musurputta and Sulangi. The court noted that the petitioners had not first resorted to statutory recourse set out under the Panchayat Act, 1996 rules before approaching the High Court.
In its judgment dated 28 October, the bench observed that while the right to propagate religion is protected, it does not extend to “conversion by force, allurement or fraudulent means”. It cited a precedent that such activities may be regulated in the interest of public order and tribal cultural continuity. The court held that the hoardings acted as precautionary measures and were not inherently unconstitutional, provided they adhere to constitutional text and lawful restrictions.
The state had defended the banners, represented by the Additional Advocate General Y. S. Thakur. He argued that gram sabhas are empowered under the PESA Act to protect local traditions, deities, worship practices and social institutions from exploitative practices, including inducement-driven conversions. He told the court that the banners targeted only pastors from outside the villages who were allegedly involved in conversion of tribal residents by inducement, and noted previous communal disturbances in the region as context for the precautionary signage.
Critics argue that these banners raise serious concerns about religious freedom and equal access, especially in tribal regions. Christian leaders in the area say the measures fuel discrimination and marginalise communities already vulnerable to isolation. Several faith-based organisations contend that such signage may deter legitimate pastoral activity, humanitarian engagement and worship by converts through fear of exclusion or stigma. They also point out that the mere presence of a banner at village ingress sends a chilling signal to outsiders and internal converts alike.
Supporters of the court decision argue that the state has a responsibility to safeguard tribal customary practices and cultural identity. They say that when conversion is suspected to be motivated by monetary or material benefits, rather than genuine belief, local governance bodies have a legitimate role to intervene. In areas where tribal populations live under protective legal regimes, such as those governed by the PESA Act, the authority of gram sabhas to regulate internal village affairs may carry additional weight.