In a big legal setback to the Congress-led Karnataka government, the High Court Bench at Dharwad granted an interim stay on a contentious government order. The order required official prior permission for organizing any event, including public meetings and foot marches, at state-owned and public places.
The order was passed by the bench led by Justice M. Nagaprasanna, following a writ petition moved by an NGO, Punaschetana Seva Samsthe, against the constitutional validity of the order.
Order Considered ‘Unconstitutional’ by Petitioner
The petition directly confronted the government’s order, holding that the order—which labels as illegal any group of more than 10 people without permission—was a violation of fundamental rights.
Petitioner’s senior counsel Ashok Harnalli argued that the Home Department order is against both the law and the Constitution. He argued that it was not possible to prohibit public gatherings in places like parks, grounds, and lakes and that it particularly clipped the constitutional rights of the people under Article 19(1)(a) relating to freedom of speech and assembly.
“At the very beginning, it is clear that the order is unconstitutional,” the counsel submitted.
The Background: RSS Ban Row
The government’s directive, which was ordered during a cabinet meeting on October 16, was after a letter sent by Minister for RDPR, IT and BT, Priyank Kharge, to Chief Minister Siddaramaiah. Kharge’s letter had particularly appealed to the government to ban or curtail Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) activities in public and government properties throughout the state.
While the official notification issued on the order was widely worded—expressing a necessity to keep public access open, avoid hindrances, and preserve law and order—the intention behind the move was primarily to curtail RSS activities, following which a political showdown between the Congress-led ruling party and opposition BJP ensued.
Court Challenges Government’s Motive
Throughout the hearing, the attorney general, who argued for the state government, asked for one week to submit its elaborate arguments.
The High Court bench, however, noted that it was not clear what the government was attempting to do by issuing such an order. The court went on to issue notices to both the Home Department and the state government and while granting the interim stay.
