The Karnataka High Court on Thursday refused to lift the interim stay on the state government’s October 18 order that restricted unauthorised gatherings of more than ten people in public places including roads, parks, and playgrounds.
The directive was issued in the middle of a dispute between the Congress-led state government and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh regarding permissions for its annual route marches. The government order stated that any such gatherings would be considered an “unlawful assembly” and would attract punishment under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
On October 28, a single-judge bench of the Karnataka High Court led by Justice M Nagaprasanna stayed the government’s order, noting that the state could not restrict peaceful assembly without legislative backing and that administrative convenience alone could not justify such curbs.
The state government later challenged the decision, but on Thursday, a division bench of Justices SG Pandit and Geetha KB of the Dharwad Bench declined to interfere with the stay.
Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty argued that the government had not imposed a blanket ban but merely required organisers to obtain prior permission. He told the court that the directive was an “enabling provision” and a “positive measure” aimed at maintaining public order and protecting government property.
“All the government order states is that encroaching on government property would constitute an offence under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,” Shetty said during the last hearing on November 4. “We are not preventing peaceful gatherings, but processions and rallies involving large crowds cannot be held in public parks or on roads without prior approval.”
Shetty added that citizens remained free to hold cultural or civic events by seeking permission or using private venues such as community halls.
Senior advocate Ashok Harnahalli, representing the Hubballi-based NGO Punashchetana Seva Samsthe that challenged the order, argued that the constitutional right to peaceful assembly under Article 19(1)(b) can be restricted only on grounds of public order and not through executive action.
Harnahalli described the order as “manifestly arbitrary,” saying that if enforced, it would absurdly require even people wanting to “play cricket in a public playground to seek daily permission from the authorities.”
