Karnataka High Court reserves order on state’s plea against stay on ban of public gatherings without
Bengaluru/Dharwad: The Karnataka High Court has reserved its order on the state government’s appeal challenging the interim stay granted against its directive that prohibits gatherings of more than 10 people in public places without prior permission from competent authorities.
The order in question, issued by the state government on October 18, 2025, sought to restrict any assembly, including those organised by private groups such as the RSS, in public areas like roads, parks, and playgrounds without prior approval. The Dharwad bench of the High Court, through a single-judge bench on October 28, had issued an interim stay on the order.
Hearing the government’s appeal on Tuesday, a division bench comprising Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice K.B. Geetha concluded arguments and reserved its decision.
Advocate General K. Shashikiran Shetty, representing the state government, argued that the notification was a lawful and reasonable measure intended to protect public property and citizens’ rights. He stated that gatherings of more than 10 people in public places such as roads and playgrounds without permission could disrupt public movement and order, and hence were declared unlawful under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Shetty contended that the single-judge bench’s interim order curtailed the government’s authority over its property. “Private organisations cannot use government property at their will. The order does not restrict people from using parks for walks; it only requires prior permission for organized events such as lectures or gatherings. There is nothing unreasonable about this,” he said.
He further noted that if any organisation sought permission, it would be granted within three days as per the new guidelines. “The order was issued solely to protect government property,” Shetty asserted.
The division bench questioned whether the government could have approached the single-judge bench itself for vacating the interim stay. Responding, the Advocate General said that since the stay order was already granted, the appropriate remedy was to approach a higher bench.
Senior Advocate Ashok Haranahalli, appearing for the original petitioners from Punashchetana Seva Trust, argued that the government’s view of public spaces as its exclusive property was legally flawed. “The state cannot claim ownership over playgrounds and parks in a manner that denies public access. Citizens have the right to use these spaces,” he said.
He further questioned, “If a group wishes to play cricket in a playground, must they seek daily permission from the government? Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution guarantees the right to assemble peacefully without arms. This order amounts to an unreasonable restriction on that fundamental right.”
Haranahalli maintained that various provisions under criminal law already exist to curb unlawful assemblies and that municipal authorities, not the state government, are empowered to regulate the use of local public spaces. “If the state wants to impose such restrictions, it must enact legislation rather than issue an executive order that curtails citizens’ rights,” he argued.
On October 28, Justice M. Nagaprasanna of the single-judge bench had granted an interim stay on the state’s order, observing that the government directive prima facie infringed upon the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution, the rights to free speech and peaceful assembly.
The bench had held that fundamental rights cannot be curtailed by an executive order but only by a valid law enacted under constitutional provisions. “If such an order is allowed to stand, it would effectively deprive citizens of their basic freedoms,” the court had observed.
Invoking Article 13(2) of the Constitution, which prohibits the state from making any law that abridges fundamental rights, the bench had stayed the implementation of the October 18 government order and subsequent directives until further hearing.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
'Someone must be held accountable': HC converts civil suit on Goa nightclub tragedy into PIL
Panaji (PTI): The Bombay High Court on Monday converted a civil suit against Birch by Romeo Lane nightclub into a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) saying "someone has to be held accountable" for the tragedy in which 25 people were killed.In a stern observation, Goa bench of the High Court of Justices Sarang Kotwal and Ashish Chavan said the local panchayat had "failed to take suo motu cognisance" of the club and had taken "no action despite complaints."
The division bench directed the Goa government to file a detailed reply on the permissions granted to the nightclub.
The High Court, while fixing January 8 as the next date of hearing, pointed out that commercial operations were continuing in the structure despite it having been served a demolition order.
The original petition was filed after the December 6 tragedy by Pradeep Ghadi Amonkar and Sunil Divkar, the owners of the land on which the nightclub was operating.
ALSO READ: Veteran Congress leader Shamanuru Shivashankarappa laid to rest with full state honours
Advocate Rohit Bras de Sa, the lawyer representing the petitioner, was made amicus curiae in the matter and has been asked to file a detailed affidavit in the matter.
In their petition, Amonkar and Divkar highlighted "the alarming pattern of statutory violations that have remained inadequately addressed despite multiple complaints, inspections, show-cause notices, and even a demolition order".
They contended that these violations posed "immediate threats to public safety, ecological integrity, and the rule of law in the state of Goa."
Investigations by multiple agencies into the nightclub fire have revealed various irregularities, including lack of permissions to operate the nightclub.
The Goa police arrested five managers and staff members of the club, while co-owners Gaurav Luthra and Saurabh Luthra have been detained in Thailand after they fled the country.
