The Karnataka High Court on Thursday declined to vacate its earlier stay on a controversial state government order that restricts unauthorised public gatherings of more than ten people across public spaces. The ruling marks a significant moment in the ongoing tussle between the Congress-led Karnataka government and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) over permissions for annual marches and other public events.

The order, issued on October 18, had directed that any congregation of over ten individuals in roads, public parks, playgrounds, and other government-owned spaces without prior permission would be treated as an “unlawful assembly,” punishable under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). It immediately triggered concerns from civil society groups, opposition parties, and rights organisations, who argued that the directive amounted to an unconstitutional curb on peaceful assembly.

Background of the Legal Challenge

On October 28, Justice M. Nagaprasanna of the Karnataka High Court’s single-judge bench stayed the operation of the order, observing that the state government had no authority to curtail the fundamental right to peaceful assembly through a simple executive order. The judge noted that the Constitution permits restrictions under Article 19(1)(b) solely on grounds of public order and only through legislative means—not through administrative directions issued for reasons of convenience or crowd management.

The state government, insisting that no blanket ban was imposed, challenged the stay before a division bench of the High Court. On Thursday, a bench comprising Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice Geetha K.B. of the Dharwad Bench refused to interfere with the single-judge order, effectively upholding the stay and freezing the contentious directive until the matter is decided finally.

Government’s Arguments: ‘Not a Ban, But a Regulatory Mechanism’

During the hearings, Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty defended the government’s stand, arguing that the order was being misinterpreted as a ban. Shetty clarified that the government had merely instructed organisers of large public gatherings to seek prior permission, a routine procedure for processions and rallies. According to him, the order served as a preventive tool to protect public order and government property, and to ensure that major events did not disrupt essential services or traffic flow.

Shetty described the order as an “enabling provision” designed to regulate public activities. At a previous hearing on November 4, he stressed that peaceful gatherings were not being prohibited, but that large processions and rallies—which often draw thousands—could not be permitted in parks, roads, or other public spaces without appropriate permissions. He further noted that civic, cultural, and political events could always be held in private venues such as halls, auditoriums, or community centres, thereby avoiding possible congestion on public property.

“All that the government order says,” Shetty told the court, “is that if government property is encroached upon without permission, it may amount to an offence under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. This is not an attempt to curb fundamental rights but to ensure that public property and public order are not compromised.”

The government argued that in recent months, large processions by different organisations—including the RSS—had put pressure on district administrations, and that the new guidelines were intended to streamline management of such events.

Counterarguments: ‘Arbitrary Executive Overreach’

On the opposing side, senior advocate Ashok Harnahalli, representing the Hubballi-based NGO Punashchetana Seva Samsthe, contended that the order amounted to “manifestly arbitrary” executive overreach. He said that the right to peaceful assembly is enshrined under Article 19(1)(b) and can be restricted only on clearly defined grounds related to public order, not simply through an administrative document issued by the state government.

Harnahalli criticised what he described as the sweeping nature of the order. If implemented, he warned, the directive would produce absurd results, such as requiring citizens to seek daily police permission simply to play cricket or hold informal activities in a public playground. He emphasised that public spaces have long served as essential venues for democratic participation, social interaction, and cultural activities, and that the government could not blanketly criminalise the act of gathering without a clear legislative mandate.

The petitioners further submitted that the order seemed to be politically motivated, especially given ongoing friction between the state government and the RSS over its proposed routes for annual marches. They argued that the government’s move appeared timed to restrict specific organisations rather than respond to any real or imminent threat to public order.

Court’s Observations and Continuing Stay

The division bench declined to lift the stay, agreeing with the single judge that the state government must justify restrictions on constitutional rights through proper statutory backing. The court noted that while the state has a duty to maintain public order, such responsibilities must be balanced against citizens’ freedoms and cannot be discharged through executive actions alone.

The bench did not issue a detailed order on Thursday but made it clear that the stay would continue until the larger questions of legality and constitutional validity are fully examined.

Political Context and Public Reaction

The October 18 order was issued at a time of heightened political tension. For weeks, the state government and the RSS had been in conflict over permissions for the organisation’s annual route marches, which typically involve thousands of uniformed volunteers walking through designated localities. Several district administrations reportedly raised concerns about these processions, citing traffic challenges and potential law and order issues.

Opposition leaders have accused the Congress government of selectively targeting RSS-linked activities while granting permissions for events organised by groups supportive of the ruling party. Meanwhile, Congress leaders have maintained that the government’s priority is public safety and not politics.

Civil rights groups and legal experts expressed relief that the stay remains in place, warning that allowing an executive order to override fundamental rights would set a dangerous precedent. Many noted that public spaces are vital democratic arenas, especially in a country where private venues are often inaccessible or unaffordable for ordinary citizens.

What Happens Next

With the stay upheld, the state government must now defend the order in detail when the matter returns for substantive hearing. The High Court will examine whether the directive is supported by law, whether it crosses constitutional limits, and whether the state can impose such conditions without legislative sanction.

Until a final judgment is delivered, the government order remains suspended, and citizens retain the right to assemble peacefully in public spaces without seeking daily permission—subject to existing laws governing public order, traffic regulation, and criminal procedure.

The case is expected to have implications beyond Karnataka, as several states periodically issue administrative orders regulating public gatherings, especially during politically sensitive periods. The Karnataka High Court’s scrutiny of the government’s move is likely to shape the boundaries between executive power and civil liberties in the months ahead.

---