Karnataka High Court Reserves Verdict On State's Appeal Challenging Stay Of GO Restricting Gatherings In Public Places

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (November 4) reserved its verdict on State government's appeal challenging single judge's interim order staying the Home Department's GO prohibiting gathering of ten or more persons for peaceful civic, social, or cultural activities in public places. 

On October 28 the single judge while staying the GO had remarked that it prima facie infringed fundamental rights of citizens.

The GO states that any procession or rally involving the use of government properties, including roads, parks, playgrounds, water bodies, or any other immovable property under the jurisdiction of municipal corporations or boards maintained by the State Government would be prohibited if more than ten people gather, such an assembly being treated as an unlawful gathering.

Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty for the State submitted before a division bench of Justice SG Pandit and Justice Geetha KB that the GO only states that if you encroach upon the government property then it would amount to offence under BNS.

The court at this stage asked, "Prima facie congregation of 10 or more people, is it unlawful? Suppose if people want to walk together. What prevents you from going before ld single judge and seeking clarification?"

AG submitted, "What we are only asking for  in context of procession and rally it cannot be seen as in regards of people walking in the park. Petitioner wants to preach in the park that is not permissible. Look at what the petitioner (before single judge) wants to do and then consider the GO". 

He said that the petitioner can hire halls and hold symposiums.

"Suppose if tomorrow 30 organisations come and sit in the park is it permissible? 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," the AG said. 

"Courts have limited protest to Freedom Park in Bengaluru, Court has directed that Kanteerva stadium be used only for sporting activities...If an application is filed we will consider and grant permission. This order has come out in positive sense, protecting government property and larger public interest and no rights of citizens is affected. Petitioner herein in the garb of public interest has filed this petition," the AG said. 

The AG said that the order was not prohibiting gathering but the State was saying that the persons who want to hold gathering should seek permission. 

"This is an enabling provision and is a positive direction," he said. 

Senior advocate  Ashok Haranhalli appearing for the respondent (petitioner before single judge) said that the State cannot say that it cannot go before single judge and seek clarification."When interim order is passed writ appeal is not maintainable," he said. 

Haranhalli submitted that the right to assemble peacefully is conferred under Article 19 (b) and State can only interfere if there is an issue regarding public order.

"If a group wants to play cricket in playground they will have to take permission everyday from the government," he said. 

"I do not know what is positive about this order. There cannot be a most manifestly arbitrary order than this," he added. 

Haranhalli said that the State is saying that congregation of 10 or more people becomes unlawful. However only an Executive Magistrate can apprehend disruption of law and order and pass necessary order.

Haranhalli, "Streets vest with local bodies and it is for them to regulate. State has no role in this matter at all. If they want to do it then pass an order using legislative powers. The case is posted now before learned single judge on Nov 17". At this stage the division bench said that it will consider the arguments. 

Meanwhile the AG submitted that people are allowed to play in parks and playgrounds. However the respondent (petitioners before single judge) wants to hold symposium and talks and speech, the AG added.

He submitted that the interim order was in the nature of final order.

The court said, "Generally we cannot say that appeal is not maintainable". 

The AG meanwhile said that if the petitioner wants to hold any talk etc let him file an application and if rejected then they can approach the court, but as of now there is no cause of action. 

The court then went on to reserve its verdict. 

Case title: State of Karnataka AND Punashchetana Seva Samaste

WA 100694/2025