The Karnataka High Court Division Bench on Tuesday, November 4, reserved its verdict on the State government’s appeal challenging a single judge’s interim order that had stayed a government directive restricting the use of public spaces for gatherings without prior permission.
The October 28 Government Order (GO), issued by the Home Department, bars private groups or individuals from assembling ten or more people in public places including parks, playgrounds, roads, and other government properties without prior approval from the authorities. The order came shortly after the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) proposed route marches across the State to mark its centenary.
During the hearing, the Bench of Justice SG Pandit and Justice Geetha KB asked the State whether a gathering of ten or more people could automatically be deemed “unlawful.” “Suppose if people want to walk together? What prevents you from going before the learned single judge and seeking clarification?” the Bench asked.
Advocate-General Shashi Kiran Shetty, representing the State, clarified that the GO targeted organised events such as processions and rallies, not casual gatherings. “The petitioner wants to preach in the park. That is not permissible,” he said. He argued that the petitioner could instead hire halls and hold symposiums. “We are not objecting to what the petitioner is doing, but he cannot do it in public parks. Even in Cubbon Park we have imposed restrictions,” he said.
He added that similar judicial restrictions already limit protests to Freedom Park and confine Kanteerava Stadium to sporting activities. “If an application is filed, we will consider and grant permission. This order has come out in a positive sense, protecting government property and larger public interest. No rights of citizens are affected. The petitioner, in the garb of public interest, has filed this petition,” he said.
The AG described the GO as an “enabling provision” rather than a restriction.
Senior advocate Ashok Haranahalli, appearing for the respondent organisations — Hubballi-Dharwad-based Punashchetana Seva Samsthe and We Care Foundation — contended that the State should have sought clarification from the single judge instead of filing an appeal. “When an interim order is passed, a writ appeal is not maintainable,” he said.
Invoking Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution, he argued that the right to assemble peacefully can be curtailed only on grounds of public order. “If a group wants to play cricket in a playground, they would have to take permission every day under this order,” he remarked. He further noted that only an Executive Magistrate can restrict assemblies based on law and order concerns, and that regulation of public spaces such as streets falls within the purview of local bodies, not the State.
The Bench observed that “generally we cannot say that appeal is not maintainable” and said it would consider the arguments. After hearing both sides, it reserved judgment on the government’s appeal. The main petition before the single judge is scheduled for hearing on November 17.