Karnataka High Court Orders Inquiry Against Police Inspector For "Undue Indulgence" In Dispute Between Two Religious Institution

The Karnataka High Court has directed the Police Commissioner, Dharwad to initiate departmental inquiry against a police inspector for allegedly interfering with the functioning of a religious institution.

A single judge, Justice M Nagaprasanna said, “There is material in the case at hand to demonstrate that the 3 rd respondent has indulged in abuse of his power. Therefore, it becomes a fit case to direct the Commissioner, to initiate a departmental inquiry against the 3rd respondent. The departmental inquiry shall be guided to unearth the fact as to what led the 3rd respondent; who led the 3rd respondent; why was he led, to show over indulgence in the matter, in which he should not have been interfered, unless there was a law and order problem.”

Uttaradi Mutt had instituted a suit against Sri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt seeking relief of permanent injunction and restraining the latter from disturbing the performance of Aradhana of Sri Naraharitheertha Swamy Brundavana.

The trial court had passed a restraint order against Sri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, which came to be reversed in the second appeal. Subsequently, Uttaradi Mutt approached the Supreme Court which directed the parties to maintain status quo.

In the interregnum, the Manager of the Uttaradi Mutt allegedly received a call from the Circle Inspector, asking him to hand over keys of Brundavana to the devotees of Sri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt.

The government advocate contended that the action of the Inspector (3rd respondent) was wanting to protect law and order, and there is no mistake on his part. The police inspector himself filed his detailed statement of objections refuting every claim by contending that he had only done his duty and called a "shanti sabha" to protect law and order.

Findings

The bench on going through the records and the transcript of the telephonic conversation between the Manager of the Mutt and the Inspector noted that the conversation was clear- about the latter asking the former to hand over the keys. However, it noted, "There was no law and order problem. There was no warrant to have directed handing over of the keys." Rather, Court noted that the alleged shanthi sabha conducted by the Inspector prompted Sri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt to break open the lock of Brundavana, which was in possession of the Uttaradi Mutt.

Following which the court said “It is as clear as noon day that the 3rd respondent acted beyond his powers and scope of litigation. He has sought to interfere with the functioning of religious institutions in their dispute. This Court way back in 1999 itself has warned that Police should not interfere with religious activities. Despite that, the 3rd respondent even before the ink on the judgment passed in R.S.A.No.2892 of 2006 could dry, has directed handing over of keys, while that is not the order in the regular second appeal. There was no order of any Court for the 3rd respondent to call the petitioner and ask for handing over of the keys.”

The court referred to the Circular issued by the State directing the police not to interfere with the individual disputes or matters which are purely civil in nature. It said “On all the aforesaid circumstances, it has now become necessary to unearth the truth as to, at whose instance the 3rd respondent was acting to overreach orders passed by coordinate benches of this Court.”

Accordingly it directed the Police Commissioner to conduct the inquiry within four months and place the report before the court.

Appearance: Advocate Madhukar Deshpande for Petitioner.

AGA Sharad V. Magadum for R1, R2.

Advocate B.C. Jnanayyaswami for R3.

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 89

Case Title: Uttaradi Mutt And State of Karnataka

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.100199 OF 2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order