1 2025:CGHC:43315 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3371 of 2025 1 - Yogendra Sahu S/o Late Rai Singh Sahu Aged About 39 Years R/o Gram Kasekera, P.S. And Tah. Chhura, Distt. Gariyaband C.G. 2 - Ishwar Lal Sahu S/o Late Rai Singh Sahu Aged About 34 Years R/o Gram Kasekera, P.S. And Tah. Chhura, Distt. Gariyaband C.G. ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 2 - The Collector, Gariyaband District Gariyaband C.G. 3 - The Superintendent Of Police, Gariyaband District Gariyaband C.G. 4 - The Station House Officer, Chhura, District Gariyaband C.G. 5 - Shri Girdhari Yadav S/o Late Mahettar Yadav Aged About 45 Years R/o Gram Kasekera, P.S. And Tah. Chhura, Distt. Gariyaband C.G. 6 - Shri Tijram Dhruw S/o Late Kulsingh Dhruv Aged About 50 Years R/o Gram Kasekera, P.S. And Tah. Chhura, Distt. Gariyaband C.G. 7 - Shri Mohan Sahu S/o Late Suklal Sahu Aged About 50 Years R/o Gram Kasekera, P.S. And Tah. Chhura, Distt. Gariyaband C.G. Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.09.01 14:13:32 +0530 2 8 - Shri Hemchand Sahu S/o Late Heeradhar Sahu Aged About 34 Years R/o Gram Kasekera, P.S. And Tah. Chhura, Distt. Gariyaband C.G. 9 - Shri Banshi Sahu S/o Late Heeradhar Sahu Aged About 36 Years R/o Gram Kasekera, P.S. And Tah. Chhura, Distt. Gariyaband C.G. 10 - Makhan Diwan (Sarpanch) S/o Shankar Diwan Aged About 32 Years R/o Gram Kasekera, P.S. And Tah. Chhura, Distt. Gariyaband C.G. ... Respondents For Petitioners : Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate For State/Respondents No.1 to 4 : Shri Soumitra Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer For Respondents No.5, 7, 8, 10 : Shri A.D. Kuldeep, Advocate For Respondents No.6 and 9 : None, though duly served with notice Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 26/08/2025 1. The petitioners have filed the present petition challenging the inaction of the respondent authorities in failing to consider the petitioners application against the private respondents, who, along with other villagers, have allegedly ostracized the petitioners from the community. The authorities failed to consider that action of the private respondents and other villagers are in violation of Articles 14, 21 and 25 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners assert entitlement to fundamental rights under the Constitution of India, specifically Articles 12 to 35, which guarantee civil liberties and protections. The petitioners acknowledge their adherence to the Hindu faith and engagement with the Kabir Panth, clarifying that this is a spiritual inclination, not a formal 3 conversion. The private respondents have allegedly caused a social and economical boycott by encouraging the villagers to isolate the petitioners and their family for following the Kabir Panth. This has resulted in no transactions or no social interactions with the petitioners. The mental distress caused by this social ostracism allegedly led to severe psychological harm, including the petitioner’s father's death due to mental shock. The private respondents allegedly coerced the petitioners into making a written declaration to leave the village, further exacerbating the harassment. There are also claims that the petitioners’ children were barred from attending the social activities. The private respondents allegedly influenced the villagers to avoid attending the petitioner's father's funeral, infringing on the petitioner's right to perform last rites. The petitioners have been systematically excluded from social events. Due to undue influence by the private respondents, the petitioners and their family members are deprived of their constitutional rights. 2. The petitioners have sought following reliefs in this petition: “i. To kindly issue a direction to the respondent authorities to initiate a formal investigation into the actions of the private respondents, including but not limited to the imposition of a social and economical boycott, threats, coercion, and denial of social services to the petitioners and their family, in violation of their constitutional rights. 4 ii. To kindly direct the authorities to take immediate action to ensure the petitioners and their families are allowed to attend the social activity, and to take necessary steps to prevent any further denial of access to work and worship, welfare benefits. iii. To kindly direct the private respondents to cease and desist from further acts of social ostracism, harassment, and undue influence over the villagers, and to refrain from interfering in the petitioners religious practices, family matters, and social interactions. iv. To kindly pass any other order that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including the awarding of costs to the petitioners.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that unfortunately there is no specific law in the State of Chhattisgarh to deal with such kind of malpractices and, therefore, few handful people take advantage of their position and power and dictate terms to run the society as per their own whims and wishes and the affected persons have no remedy against it and they are helpless. It is submitted that because of social boycott (ostracism) of the petitioners, they are deprived of appearing in any social gathering, death rituals, etc. Even no one in their village has courage to talk to the petitioners and their family members and because of all these the petitioners and their family members are facing 5 mental and social trauma. It is further submitted that the action taken by the private respondents is not only antisocial act but also unconstitutional and in fact it is an offshoot and misshaped form of untouchability. The impugned action on the part of the private respondents is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and erroneous. 4. Learned counsel for the State/respondents No.1 to 4 submitted that the authorities of the State are ready to take preventive steps to ensure that no such uncalled action/decision is taken. 5. Learned counsel for respondents No.5, 7, 8 and 10 submitted that respondents No.5, 7, 8 and 10 have not decided to socially boycott the petitioners. 6. No one appeared for respondents No.6 and 9 though they are duly served with notice. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available with due care. 8. The petitioners have raised grievance that they and their family members are socially boycotted by the private respondents and they are being excluded from various functions of the society. 9. The petitioners have Fundamental Rights under "the Right to Live with Human Dignity". The Hon'ble Supreme Court has 6 issued certain guidelines and directions in the case of Shakti Vahini v. Union of India and others, reported in (2018) 7 SCC 192 to be complied by the authorities of the State, which read thus: “55.1 Preventive Steps: 55.1.1. The State Governments should forthwith identify districts, sub-divisions and/or villages where instances of honour killing or assembly of khap panchayats have been reported in the recent past, e.g., in the last five years. 55.1.2. The Secretary, Home Department of the States concerned shall issue directives/advisories to the Superintendent of Police of the districts concerned for ensuring that the officer incharge of the police stations of the identified areas are extra cautious if any instance of inter-caste or inter-religious marriage within their jurisdiction comes to their notice. 55.1.3. If information about any proposed gathering of a khap panchayat comes to the knowledge of any police officer or any officer of the District Administration, he shall forthwith inform his immediate superior officer and also simultaneously intimate the jurisdictional Deputy Superintendent of Police and Superintendent of Police. 55.1.4. On receiving such information, the Deputy Superintendent of Police (or such senior police officer as identified by the State Governments with respect to the 7 area/district) shall immediately interact with the members of the khap panchayat and impress upon them that convening of such meeting/gathering is not permissible in law and to eschew from going ahead with such a meeting. Additionally, he should issue appropriate directions to the officer incharge of the jurisdictional police station to be vigilant and, if necessary, to deploy adequate police force for prevention of assembly of the proposed gathering. 55.1.5. Despite taking such measures, if the meeting is conducted, the Deputy Superintendent of Police shall personally remain present during the meeting and impress upon the assembly that no decision can be taken to cause any harm to the couple or the family members of the couple, failing which each one participating in the meeting besides the organisers would be personally liable for criminal prosecution. He shall also ensure that video recording of the discussion and participation of the members of the assembly is done on the basis of which the law-enforcing machinery can resort to suitable action. 55.1.6. If the Deputy Superintendent of Police, after interaction with the members of the khap panchayat, has reason to believe that the gathering cannot be prevented and/or is likely to cause harm to the couple or members of their family, he shall forthwith submit a proposal to the District Magistrate/Sub-Divisional Magistrate of the District/Competent Authority of the area concerned for issuing orders to take preventive steps under Cr.P.C., including by invoking prohibitory orders under Section 144 8 Cr.P.C. and also by causing arrest of the participants in the assembly under Section 151 Cr.P.C. 55.1.7. The Home Department of the Government of India must take initiative and work in coordination with the State Governments for sensitising the law enforcement agencies and by involving all the stake holders to identify the measures for prevention of such violence and to implement the constitutional goal of social justice and the rule of law. 55.1.8. There should be an institutional machinery with the necessary coordination of all the stakeholders. The different State Governments and the Centre ought to work on sensitization of the law enforcement agencies to mandate social initiatives and awareness to curb such violence. 55.2. Remedial Measures: 55.2.1. Despite the preventive measures taken by the State Police, if it comes to the notice of the local police that the khap panchayat has taken place and it has passed any diktat to take action against a couple/family of an inter-caste or inter-religious marriage (or any other marriage which does not meet their acceptance), the jurisdictional police official shall cause to immediately lodge an F.I.R. under the appropriate provisions of the Penal Code including Sections 141, 143, 503 read with Section 506 IPC. 9 55.2.2. Upon registration of F.I.R., intimation shall be simultaneously given to the Superintendent of Police/Deputy Superintendent of Police who, in turn, shall ensure that effective investigation of the crime is done and taken to its logical end with promptitude. 55.2.3. Additionally, immediate steps should be taken to provide security to the couple/family and, if necessary, to remove them to a safe house within the same district or elsewhere keeping in mind their safety and threat perception. The State Government may consider of establishing a safe house at each District Headquarter for that purpose. Such safe houses can cater to accommodate: (i) young bachelor-bachelorette couples whose relationship is being opposed by their families/local community/khaps, and (ii) young married couples (of an inter-caste or inter- religious or any other marriage being opposed by their families/local community/khaps). Such safe houses may be placed under the supervision of the jurisdictional District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police. 55.2.4. The District Magistrate/Superintendent of Police must deal with the complaint regarding threat administered to such couple/family with utmost sensitivity. It should be first ascertained whether the 10 bachelor-bachelorette are capable adults. Thereafter, if necessary, they may be provided logistical support for solemnising their marriage and/or for being duly registered under police protection, if they so desire. After the marriage, if the couple so desire, they can be provided accommodation on payment of nominal charges in the safe house initially for a period of one month to be extended on monthly basis but not exceeding one year in aggregate, depending on their threat assessment on case- to-case basis. 55.2.5. The initial inquiry regarding the complaint received from the couple (bachelor-bachelorette or a young married couple) or upon receiving information from an independent source that the relationship/marriage of such couple is opposed by their family members/local community/khaps shall be entrusted by the District Magistrate/Superintendent of Police to an officer of the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police. He shall conduct a preliminary inquiry and ascertain the authenticity, nature and gravity of threat perception. On being satisfied as to the authenticity of such threats, he shall immediately submit a report to the Superintendent of Police in not later than one week. 55.2.6. The District Superintendent of Police, upon receipt of such report, shall direct the Deputy Superintendent of Police incharge of the sub-division concerned to cause to register an F.I.R. against the persons threatening the couple(s) and, if necessary, 11 invoke Section 151 Cr.P.C. Additionally, the Deputy Superintendent of Police shall personally supervise the progress of investigation and ensure that the same is completed and taken to its logical end with promptitude. In the course of investigation, the persons concerned shall be booked without any exception including the members who have participated in the assembly. If the involvement of the members of khap panchayat comes to the fore, they shall also be charged for the offence of conspiracy or abetment, as the case may be.” 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the action/decision of social boycott is certainly a social evil and requires to be eradicated from the society to ensure that no individual is adversely affected by any harsh action/decision of any individual or head of a community or sabha. The impugned action is unsustainable. 11. Therefore, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the State/respondents No.1 to 4 to comply with the aforesaid guidelines and directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shakti Vahini (supra) with respect to the grievance of the petitioners. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Gopal