Karnataka High Court Reserves Verdict on State’s Appeal Over Ban on Public Gatherings
The government’s order requires prior permission for assemblies of ten or more people in public spaces; the court questions whether such gatherings can be deemed “unlawful.”
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday, November 4, reserved its verdict on the State government’s appeal against a single-judge order that had stayed a directive restricting public gatherings without prior permission.
The October 28 Government Order (GO), issued by the Home Department, prohibits private individuals or groups from assembling ten or more people in public spaces — including parks, roads, playgrounds, and other government properties — without official approval. The directive came soon after the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) announced route marches across Karnataka to mark its centenary.
A Division Bench comprising Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice Geetha K.B. heard the appeal and questioned whether every gathering of ten or more people could be treated as “unlawful.” The Bench asked the State, “Suppose people simply want to walk together — would that be an offence? Why not seek clarification from the single judge?”
Advocate-General Shashi Kiran Shetty, representing the State, argued that the order applied to organised events such as processions or rallies, not informal or casual gatherings. “The petitioner wants to preach in a public park. That is not permissible,” he said, adding that such activities could be conducted in halls or private venues.
He noted that restrictions already exist on protests — limited to Freedom Park — and that Kanteerava Stadium is reserved for sporting events. “If an application is filed, we will consider and grant permission. This order is meant to protect public property and serve the larger interest. No citizen rights are being violated,” the AG said, calling the GO an “enabling provision” rather than a restriction.
Opposing the appeal, Senior Advocate Ashok Haranahalli, appearing for respondent organisations Punashchetana Seva Samsthe and We Care Foundation, argued that the State should have sought clarification instead of appealing an interim order. “When an interim order is passed, a writ appeal is not maintainable,” he said.
He further contended that the order infringes upon the constitutional right to peaceful assembly under Article 19(1)(b). “If a group of people wants to play cricket in a playground, they would need permission every day under this order,” he remarked. Haranahalli also pointed out that only an Executive Magistrate can impose restrictions on public gatherings, and that managing public spaces falls under local bodies, not the State government.
After hearing both sides, the Bench observed that the maintainability of the appeal could not be dismissed outright and reserved its judgment. The main petition before the single judge is scheduled for hearing on November 17.
