Chhattisgarh HC junks plea for SIT, compensation & inquiry commission in Sukma violence against tribal Christians

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

The petitioners sought various reliefs, including compensation, the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT), and a Commission of Inquiry.A division bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru ruled that the reliefs sought, such as compensation and the constitution of an SIT or Inquiry Commission 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 life and liberty for practising Christianity. They alleged that despite repeated oral and written complaints, police and administrative authorities failed to register First Information Reports (FIRs), provide protection, conduct fair investigations, or rehabilitate victims.

Some officials reportedly refused to acknowledge 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 such as compensation or the formation of an SIT or Inquiry Commission.

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, such as filing an application under Section 156 (3) CrPC before the concerned court.

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.