Amarjeet Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh
Case at a glance
- Neutral citation
- 2026:CGHC:18849-DB
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate any sufficient ground to come out from the said preliminary objection raised by the learned Advocate General. 4 In view of the above, since the bill itself is not notified till date, the petition filed by…
Judgment
: Mr. Ravi Advocate. Kumar Banjare, For State : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate General. For Union of India/Respondent No.3 Mr. R.K. Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General of India. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge 2 Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 24-04-2026
The present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to declare the Chhattisgarh Freedom of Religion Bill, 2026 (Bill No. 7 of 2026) as unconstitutional, ultra vires the Constitution of India and void ab initio;
10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned Chhattisgarh Freedom of Religion Bill, 2026 (Bill No. 7 of 2026).
10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to forthwith grant permission to the Petitioner to convert his religion from Hinduism to Christianity in accordance with his application dated 06.04.2026.
10.4 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deems fit and appropriate.”
Learned Advocate General has raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present writ petition challenging its voidy and states that as per the prayer itself, though the Hon’ble Governor has accepted the said bill, but yet it has not come into force and it has not been notified. As per clause 1 (3) of the said bill, it has to be come 3 into force from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette of Chhattisgarah Government and fixed for its enforcement. Therefore, the present petition is premature one.
Learned counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate any sufficient ground to come out from the said preliminary objection raised by the learned Advocate General. 4 In view of the above, since the bill itself is not notified till date, the petition filed by the petitioner is premature one, therefore, the same is dismissed on this ground alone. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Aadil
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.