HC junks plea seeking SIT, aid for 'persecution of tribal Christians'

Raipur: The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by 20 petitioners, primarily from the Tribal Christian community, who alleged systematic communal violence, displacement, and destruction of property against them in villages across Sukma district.

The petitioners sought setting up a special investigation team (SIT) to probe the cases, a commission of inquiry and compensation.

A division bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru ruled that the mentioned reliefs sought under the Act, 1952, could not be directed in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners claimed they were subjected to targeted communal violence, including assaults, displacement, destruction of homes and property, sacrilege of religious materials, and threats to their life and liberty for practising Christianity. They alleged that despite repeated oral and written complaints, police and administrative authorities failed to register FIRs, provide protection, conduct fair investigations, or rehabilitate victims. They said that some officials even refused to acknowledge their complaints or rebuked the petitioners for their faith. Sanbha Rumnong and Samuel David, counsels for the petitioners, presented the case.

R S Marhas, additional advocate general, appearing for the state, submitted that an FIR was already registered for one of the incidents reported by some petitioners, and the matter was under investigation. The additional advocate general argued that the petition, seeking multiple reliefs, was not maintainable under Article 226 for ‘demands'.

He added that if the petitioners' grievance was specifically about the non-registration of an FIR concerning an incident on April 24, 2025, they should pursue remedies available under law.

He cited the Allahabad High Court's decision in Waseem Haider vs. State of UP (2020), which dismissed a similar petition.

The court, after hearing arguments at length, found no grounds to interfere with the petition and dismissed it, granting the petitioners liberty to approach appropriate forums for redressal of their grievances.

Consequently, all pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.

Raipur: The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by 20 petitioners, primarily from the Tribal Christian community, who alleged systematic communal violence, displacement, and destruction of property against them in villages across Sukma district.

The petitioners sought setting up a special investigation team (SIT) to probe the cases, a commission of inquiry and compensation.

A division bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru ruled that the mentioned reliefs sought under the Act, 1952, could not be directed in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners claimed they were subjected to targeted communal violence, including assaults, displacement, destruction of homes and property, sacrilege of religious materials, and threats to their life and liberty for practising Christianity. They alleged that despite repeated oral and written complaints, police and administrative authorities failed to register FIRs, provide protection, conduct fair investigations, or rehabilitate victims. They said that some officials even refused to acknowledge their complaints or rebuked the petitioners for their faith. Sanbha Rumnong and Samuel David, counsels for the petitioners, presented the case.

R S Marhas, additional advocate general, appearing for the state, submitted that an FIR was already registered for one of the incidents reported by some petitioners, and the matter was under investigation. The additional advocate general argued that the petition, seeking multiple reliefs, was not maintainable under Article 226 for ‘demands'.

He added that if the petitioners' grievance was specifically about the non-registration of an FIR concerning an incident on April 24, 2025, they should pursue remedies available under law.

He cited the Allahabad High Court's decision in Waseem Haider vs. State of UP (2020), which dismissed a similar petition.

The court, after hearing arguments at length, found no grounds to interfere with the petition and dismissed it, granting the petitioners liberty to approach appropriate forums for redressal of their grievances.

Consequently, all pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.