Karnataka High Court Upholds Order Restraining Spiritual Leader From Visiting Vijaypura, Says Conduct Eroded Dignity Attached To Office
Mustafa Plumber
17 Oct 2025 3:07 PM IST
"Such conduct, by any measure, is wholly inconsistent with the moral and spiritual discipline expected of a religious head and erodes the dignity attached to his office,” the court said.
The Karnataka High Court on Friday upheld the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Vijayapura District, restraining the Sri Adrushya Kadeshwara Swamiji Guru Muppina Kadeshwara Swamiji, from entering the territorial limits of Vijayapura District for the period from 16.10.2025 to 14.12.2025.
Following offensive remarks against Lingayat leaders, Kadasiddheshwara Swamiji of Kaneri Mutt had been banned from entering the Vijayapura district of Karnataka for two months.
The restraining order was issued on October 16, after the petitioner was alleged to have made comments targeting Lingayat leaders and devotees in his speech.
A bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum while dismissing the petition said “This Court finds that the impugned prohibitory order is based on relevant material and is neither arbitrary nor excessive. The order represents a legitimate preventive measure issued in the interest of maintaining public order. No ground is made out to warrant interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.”
It said, “The petitioner, by refraining from such visit, would in fact be upholding the true spirit of his calling and setting a noble example for his followers.”
The petitioner argued that the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal, and actuated by extraneous and political considerations. There are no materials whatsoever to invoke sub section (2) of Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. He merely intends to participate in the Punya Tithi of Samarth Sadguru Shri Siddharameshwara Maharajaru at Basavana Bagewadi, District Vijayapura, scheduled on 16th and 17th October, 2025.
He had already commenced his journey from Kolhapur to Vijayapura to attend the said religious gathering. Moreover, the issuance of prohibitory order at the eleventh hour amounts to a direct infringement of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India.
Advocate General Shashikiran Shetty for the state relied on the inputs furnished in the police report and submitted that petitioner's proposed visit is likely to disturb public order and may lead to breach of peace. There are credible intelligence inputs indicating widespread protests already being organized by devotees in response to the petitioner's recent use of abusive and intemperate language against another pontiff.
The bench on going through the extract of the statement made by the petitioner said, “It is no doubt unfortunate that differences have arisen between two revered spiritual leaders, and the petitioner, being a pontiff commanding considerable public following, is expected to exhibit composure, tolerance, and restraint even in the face of provocation. However, the material placed before this Court reveals that the petitioner's reaction to the remarks made by another pontiff was not confined to a dignified rebuttal, but degenerated into use of threatening and abusive language, including statements suggestive of physical assault. Such conduct, by any measure, is wholly inconsistent with the moral and spiritual discipline expected of a religious head and erodes the dignity attached to his office.”
It added “A person who chooses to respond in such an intemperate and provocative manner cannot, merely by virtue of his ecclesiastical position, claim immunity from the ordinary application of law or seek indulgence under the guise of religious freedom.”
Stating that the court is informed about the petitioner's revered stature. However, it cannot overlook the fact that his utterances have already resulted in public protests and created palpable tension among devotees.
The bench held, “ In such circumstances, the preventive measures adopted by the District Administration, based on credible intelligence inputs, cannot be said to be arbitrary or disproportionate. The right to movement under Article 19(1)(d) carries with it the obligation to ensure that its exercise does not imperil public peace.”
Further, it suggested “The petitioner, instead of asserting his right in defiance of prevailing circumstances, ought to demonstrate spiritual maturity by voluntarily deferring his visit in the larger interest of maintaining public order.”
Emphasising that the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution, which confers upon every citizen the right to move freely throughout the territory of India, is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(5) in the interests of the general public.
The court said “The materials on record, including the statements made by the petitioner, reveal the use of abusive and derogatory language wholly unbecoming of a person claiming spiritual status. When such conduct is capable of inflaming religious sentiments and provoking unrest, the preventive measures adopted by the District Administration cannot be termed arbitrary or excessive. The restriction imposed is narrowly tailored to prevent imminent disorder and does not permanently curtail the petitioner's right under Article 19(1)(d).”
The bench also opined that “It is expected of a person holding the exalted position of a spiritual head or pontiff to act with restraint, humility, and a sense of responsibility befitting the faith and reverence reposed in him by the followers. A saint or religious leader occupies a place of moral influence and spiritual guidance in society, and therefore his words and actions carry far-reaching consequences on the conduct of devotees. The petitioner, being a pontiff of considerable following, ought to be conscious that any statement or act perceived as provocative or derogatory can have a cascading effect on public peace and order.”
It was observed that “Record discloses that the petitioner's previous utterances contained language that was clearly abusive and unbecoming of a spiritual leader.”
The bench then said, “A spiritual leader, more than any other citizen, is expected to exemplify tolerance and self-restraint, and to rise above personal grievances in order to promote harmony and mutual respect among communities.”
Dismissing the petition, the court said “The right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution cannot be claimed in isolation, divorced from the corresponding duty to ensure that its exercise does not endanger peace or public order.” It also clarified that the petitioner shall be at liberty to renew his request for entry after the period stipulated in the order expires, subject to the prevailing law and order situation.
Appearance: Advocate Sachin Madhukar Mahajan, Prasanna Kumar for Petitioner.
Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty a/w AAG Archan P Tiwari, HCGP Jamadar Shahbuddin for Respondent.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 349
Case Title: SRI. ADRUSHYA KADESHWARA SWAMIJI GURU MUPPINA KADESHWARA SWAMJI AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.203149 OF 2025