RSS Row Turns Constitutional: Karnataka HC Rules Govt Order

The Karnataka High Court has reaffirmed one of democracy’s most fundamental tenets: freedom cannot depend on permission slips.

On November 6, the court dismissed the state government’s appeal and refused to lift the stay on its controversial October 18 order that required private organizations — including the RSS — to seek three days’ prior permission before holding gatherings in public spaces.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna’s earlier stay order remains in force, meaning that citizens and groups are free to assemble in public places without advance bureaucratic approval. The court found the state’s move “manifestly arbitrary” and a violation of Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) — the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and assembly.

What Happened and Why Now

The ruling is the culmination of a fast-moving constitutional standoff that began less than a month ago.

In mid-October, Minister Priyank Kharge wrote to the Chief Minister urging a ban on RSS activities in schools and temples, claiming the group’s drills and slogans “fill negative thoughts among children.” Within two weeks, the state issued a sweeping order prohibiting all private groups from using public land, parks, roads, or water bodies without prior permission.

The order classified gatherings of more than ten people as “unlawful assembly” unless cleared by authorities, exempting only marriages and funerals. By October 28, the High Court had stayed the order; by November 6, the government’s appeal had been thrown out.

The Context — How We Got Here

The government defended its decision as a matter of law and order, citing potential misuse of public spaces by ideological organizations. But the speed and breadth of the October 18 order — issued in just 14 days without public consultation or legislative debate — made it vulnerable to legal scrutiny.

Civil society groups including Punashchetana Seva Samsthe and We Care Foundation challenged the order, arguing that it criminalized peaceful public life. Their petition noted that “even a group playing cricket in a park would require daily permission.”

The High Court agreed. It noted that fundamental rights cannot be curtailed by executive circulars — only by law enacted by the legislature. The court’s rhetorical question captured the spirit of the verdict:

“If people wish to walk together, can that be stopped?”

The Key Players — Who Said What

Justice M. Nagaprasanna called the order unconstitutional, writing:

“If such an order is allowed to stand, it would effectively deprive citizens of their basic freedoms... Fundamental rights cannot be curtailed by an executive order but only by a valid law.”

Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty, defending the state, argued that the order aimed to “safeguard public property and ensure safety,” not to silence anyone. The court disagreed, pointing out that the rule’s scope was so broad that it would render routine gatherings suspect.

Senior Advocate Ashok Harnahalli, representing petitioners, underlined the absurdity of the law’s reach:

“Even a group playing cricket would need daily permission under this rule. There cannot be a more manifestly arbitrary order than this.”

Minister Priyank Kharge, whose letter set the process in motion, said his intent was to prevent RSS activities in public institutions — not to curb free speech — but the order’s sweeping phrasing left it vulnerable to constitutional challenge.

The BIGSTORY Reframe — Beyond RSS vs Congress

Most headlines cast this as an RSS-versus-Congress showdown. But the deeper story is structural, not ideological.

This ruling exposes the limits of executive overreach and strengthens the wall separating administration from legislation. The court invoked Article 13(2) — which prohibits the state from making laws (or orders) that abridge fundamental rights — to reaffirm that executive shortcuts cannot substitute for constitutional process.

Ironically, the Congress government’s attempt to curb one organization’s influence has now created a landmark judgment that civil liberties groups may use to challenge hundreds of administrative orders issued without legislative sanction.

This is not a partisan victory — it’s a constitutional correction.

The Implications — Why It Changes More Than One Rule

The verdict has wide ripples:

• Legal Precedent: It reaffirms that any attempt to restrict speech or assembly must come through legislative debate, not departmental circulars. Future executive orders regulating protests, rallies, or even religious processions will face heightened scrutiny.
• Civil Society Empowerment: The coalition of NGOs that fought this case — not the RSS alone — has re-centered the conversation around citizens’ assembly rights, marking a rare moment of ideological convergence in defense of freedom.
• Political Fallout: For the Congress government, the ruling is a political setback and a strategic error — what began as a bid to curb RSS influence now looks like a misstep that gave opposition parties a constitutional cudgel.
• Judicial Philosophy Shift: The 2025 judgment effectively reverses the High Court’s 2021 “Freedom Park” stance, which confined protests to designated zones. The court’s tone now embraces a broader view of liberty — suggesting an evolution in judicial thought about public space and dissent.

The Closing Question — Freedom or Control?

At its core, the Karnataka case isn’t about RSS, Congress, or Priyank Kharge. It’s about the eternal tension between freedom and control — between governments’ desire to manage order and citizens’ right to occupy public life.

The High Court’s words ring with a clarity rare in today’s polarized politics: “If people wish to walk together, can that be stopped?”

The answer, at least for now, is no — not without dismantling the constitutional promise that democracy lives not in offices or orders, but in the open spaces where citizens stand together.

FAQ

Q1. What did the Karnataka High Court rule on November 6, 2025?

A: The Karnataka High Court dismissed the state government’s appeal and upheld a stay on its October 18 order requiring private groups to seek prior permission for public gatherings. The court ruled that such restrictions violate fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Indian Constitution.

Q2. What was the original government order about?

A: The October 18 government order required all private organizations to obtain permission three days in advance before using government properties — parks, grounds, schools, roads — for any meeting or event of more than ten people. Only weddings and funerals were exempted.

Q3. Why did the High Court strike down the order?

A: Justice M. Nagaprasanna found that executive orders cannot curtail fundamental rights; only the legislature can. The court called the rule “manifestly arbitrary” and said it would effectively criminalize normal civic activities like playing cricket or walking together.

Q4. Was this ruling connected to the RSS?

A: Yes, partly. The order was issued after Minister Priyank Kharge urged a ban on RSS activities in public institutions. However, the case was brought by multiple civil society organizations, not just the RSS, arguing that the order endangered everyone’s right to peaceful assembly.

Q5. What did the Karnataka government argue in its defense?

A: The Advocate General said the order was meant to safeguard public property and ensure law and order. He argued that large rallies needed prior permission, but the court found this argument insufficient since it infringed upon constitutional freedoms.

Q6. How did the court respond to the government’s justification?

A: The bench asked pointedly, “If people wish to walk together, can that be stopped?” — emphasizing that fundamental freedoms can’t be suspended through administrative shortcuts.