Big Blow to Siddaramaiah Govt: Karnataka HC Blocks Public Gathering Ban

The Karnataka High Court’s Dharwad Bench has stayed a state order that effectively criminalized gatherings of more than ten people on government premises without prior permission—roads, parks, playgrounds, lakes, and school grounds included. Justice M. Nagaprasanna’s interim order pauses enforcement until November 17, noting that fundamental rights can’t be cut down by executive fiat.

What actually happened

On October 18, the Home Department required “prior permission” for any gathering of more than ten people on government property. Violations would be treated as offences. Civil society group Punashchetana Seva Samsthe challenged the order, with Senior Advocate Ashok Haranahalli arguing it violated Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution.

The court issued notice to the state and stayed the order. The government framed its directive as a neutral “public property” preservation measure, but the timing overlapped with RSS centenary route-marches and recent legal disputes over permission for events in Chittapur.

The people driving the story

Justice M. Nagaprasanna — issued the interim stay and pressed the state with the pointed query, “Did the government want to achieve something else?”

Ashok Haranahalli (Senior Advocate) — representing the petitioners, argued that even something as ordinary as a birthday party in a park could be rendered illegal under the order, making it unnecessarily broad when existing police powers already cover law-and-order scenarios.

Priyank Kharge (Minister) — had earlier urged action restricting RSS-linked activities and conduct of government staff, sharpening the political context around the “permission regime.”

Why it matters (beyond the RSS vs Congress frame)

Conventional take: The Congress government tried to curb RSS in public spaces, the High Court hit pause, and the BJP celebrated while the Congress planned to appeal.

Reframe: This is about the weaponization of administrative discretion. You don’t need to ban an activity outright if you can route it through a permission trap—and then control the permissions. Justice Nagaprasanna’s stay checks that temptation, reiterating that Article 19 rights need “reasonable restrictions” grounded in law, not sweeping executive orders.

Implication: Today it’s one organization; tomorrow it could be student groups, farmers, or environmental marchers. A neutral-sounding order can become a choke point for assembly and speech if discretion isn’t tightly limited.

What’s next

The next hearing on November 17 will determine whether the stay persists. If the state appeals or refashions the order under statutory authority, the court will examine necessity, proportionality, and whether existing police powers already address genuine concerns.

District administrations are already under court guidance to conduct peace meetings around contentious marches—an approach likely to spread if courts continue privileging narrow, situational management over sweeping permission rules.

FAQs

1) What did the Karnataka High Court actually do?

It issued an interim stay on the state’s Oct 18 order that required prior permission for any gathering of 10+ people on government property. Enforcement is paused until the next hearing.

2) When is the next key date?

November 17, 2025—the court will hear the matter and decide whether to extend, modify, or lift the stay.

3) What spaces were covered by the government order?

Government premises broadly defined: roads, parks, playgrounds, lakes, and school grounds.

4) Was this a ban on the RSS?

The order didn’t name any group. Practically, the timing and denials around RSS route-marches made it function like a permission choke point impacting the RSS first—and potentially others later.

5) Does the stay mean all marches are automatically allowed?

No. Normal law-and-order measures (like existing police powers and event permissions under specific statutes) still apply. The stay blocks the blanket prior-permission rule, not reasonable case-by-case regulation.