Karnataka High Court Directs State Authorities To Hold Meeting With Organizers Of Proposed RSS Route March On October 28

The Karnataka High Court on Friday (October 24) asked the State authorities to hold a peace-committee meeting with the organizers of the proposed Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) route march on October 28. 

The court said this after taking note of a report by the authorities as per which there exists some kind of tension at Chittapur town, where the march is proposed to take place.

The court passed the order while hearing a petition by the Convenor of RSS Kalaburagi Ashok Patil seeking permission to peacefully hold an RSS march (Pathasanchalana) in Chittapur Town on November 2.

During a Sunday sitting, on October 19 the court had directed the petitioner to submit a fresh application seeking permission to hold the march, and had kept the matter today. 

After hearing the matter for some time, Justice M G S Kamal in his order dictated:

"Pursuant to the order dated October 19, this court had directed respondents to consider ground realties and consider the representation made by petitioner. In furtherance a report is submitted. It is stated that authorities will have meeting with organisers and peace committee meetings...to enable the request made by various organizations including petitioner to hold protest/march. The report also reads that from October 19 till date there exists some kind of tension in Chittapur town...due to various organisation giving statement in favour or against route march in media, if permission is given there is possibility of law and order situation. It is in this background that local authorities have decided to speak to organisers to have peace committee meetings. AG submits that in two weeks time the matter would be resolved...Considering the report and arguments the respondents' authorities are directed to hold meeting with organizers on Oct 28. List this matter on Oct 30, at 2.30 pm to report the outcome of the meeting". 

The court orally asked the Advocate General (AG) Shashikiran Shetty appearing for the State, to have the meeting at the district headquarter. The AG submitted that the time for the meeting will be communicated by today evening or by tomorrow. 

The court at this stage orally said, "Do not prolong for long. Earlier resolution is better for everyone and society". 

The Advocate General said that the State does not want to prolong but petitioner should cooperate. Meanwhile Senior Advocate Aruna Shyam appearing for the petitioner submitted that it was not as if the petitioner was co-operating. At this stage the court orally asked all parties to co-operate. 

At the outset Shyam submitted that the petitioner had made representation as directed by the court in its October 19 order and had made all arrangements. 

The court asked Advocate General (AG) Shashikiran Shetty for the State as to what had happened. To which the AG said, "The DC (Deputy Commissioner) has given the report, there are two things in it".

The court asked if the copy of the report had been served upon the petitioner. To which the AG said that even he had received the report just now. 

He referred to the report and said, "The application is kept pending due to tense situation on the ground. We have not rejected their application. There is tense situation between various groups".

The court asked as to when will the application be decided. To this the AG said, "Give us ten days time we will come back. We also want to get over it". 

The court said, "Are you calling upon the organisation for meeting with you?". The AG said that the idea was to sort out the problem and various authorities are trying to work out a remedy.

The court at this stage orally said, "This is an opportunity for you to accommodate all". The AG requested to list the matter after two weeks. At this stage, Shyam objected to such listing. 

The court said, "We will have to try to find a way out. Lets see. The report is not very clear as to the way forward". 

The AG said that the authorities will definitely come up with a solution and sought that the matter be listed after two weeks. He said, "Tomorrow nothing untoward should happen, all efforts are to maintain peace". 

Shyam however said, "This is an important matter. Sunday hearing was held and we agreed for march on November 2. They are creating the problem. The other organisations are holding the march on the same day to curb the route march. It was understanding on last hearing to give the route. We gave sufficient time to them. Now ten organisations will come and say we want protest on same day and same time. We will proceed...let them give us suitable protection and let other organisations have a different day to protest". 

The court asked the AG, "In your report we do not see other organisations asking permission". To this the AG responded that the SP's report says that it is not an appropriate time to hold the march due to law-and-order problem.

Shyam meanwhile said that if the State was having difficulty in maintaining law and order problem, then Central government forces can be deputed.

As the AG said, "This is the problem milord", Shyam emphasized, "This is my fundamental right to hold route march". 

The AG however said that the petitioner's application had not been rejected and it was pending. The court thereafter said to the AG, "Concluding portion of your report says you would speak to organisers and others. When will you do it?"

The AG said that the representation was given on October 17 and the authorities have worked overnight.

The court however said, "We are all aware of it. As per your report, you have your meeting on October 28".  The AG requested that the matter be kept on October 28. 

The court thereafter said, "On October 28, you have your meeting and come back to court on October 30. We are keeping November 2 the possible date (for route march)". Shyam however requested that the meeting be held Tomorrow instead of October 28. 

The petitioner had approached the court after the application filed by the RSS seeking permission to hold the route march on October 19 was not considered by the authorities. Subsequently, the petition was amended after the Executive Magistrate, by an order dated October 18, declined permission to hold the march on the ground that other organisations intended to conduct rallies at the same time and place.

The matter is now kept on October 30. 

Case title: Ashok Patil AND The Deputy Commissioner & Others

WP 203166 of 2025