Karnataka High Court
Credit: DH Photo
Bengaluru: In a setback to the state government, the Dharwad bench of the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday stayed till Nov 17 a controversial government order that banned congregation of more than 10 persons at any place maintained by the government.
In his interim order, Justice M Nagaprasanna observed the order takes away the rights conferred upon citizens under chapter III of the Constitution.
The government order dated October 18, 2025, was issued close on the heels of the RSS proposing to take out route marches across the state to commemorate its centenary celebrations.
The order, issued by the Home Department, requires prior permission for any gathering of more than 10 persons on properties maintained by the state government, including schools, colleges, playgrounds, parks, roads and water bodies.
These premises include the ones managed by local authority or department, boards, corporation, the order said, adding congregation of more than 10 people in violation of the order could also be penalised under BNS.
The order, which was seen as an attempt to curb the route marches of the RSS, was challenged by two organisations from Hubballi — Punashcetana Seva Samsthe and We Care Foundation — and two individuals: Rajeev Malhar Patil Kulkarni from Dharwad and Uma Satyajit Chavan from Belagavi.
Senior advocate Ashok Haranahalli, representing the petitioners, submitted that the government order violates Articles 13, 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. He said that restricting public gathering is governed under section 31 of the Karnataka Police Act.
“The government is not competent to issue an executive order when the field is occupied by the statute. Parks and roads vest in the local authorities under two other statutes, The Karnataka Parks, Play-fields and Open Spaces (Preservation and Regulation) Act and Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act. Suppose I am a part of the laughter club or walking group, how does it become an unlawful assembly,” he asked, arguing that the rights guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (b) (freedom of speech and expression) cannot be taken away by issuing an executive order.
When the court sought a clarification on the issuance of the order, the government advocate sought time to seek instructions.
Justice Nagaprasanna noted that when provisions under the Karnataka Police Act regulate the conduct and behaviour and action of persons constituting assemblies and processions, the government order has, prima facie, taken away the rights conferred upon citizens under chapter III of the Constitution, specifically the freedoms under Article 19 (1)(a) and (b).
“It is trite that fundamental rights cannot be curtailed by executive orders. Article 13(2) of the Constitution holds a bar against such encroachment, that Chapter III of the Constitution can only be abridged by a law and not by an administrative order, or a Government Order," the judge said.
"Therefore, the impugned Government Order runs contrary to Article 13(2) and, thereby, takes away the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) and (b). Allowing it to operate would prima facie mean to permit liberty granted to citizens under Articles 19(1)(a) and (b) to be taken away by an executive order,” Justice Nagaprasanna observed.