Can’t Prohibit Speakers From Participating By Citing Cases: Karnataka High Court Directs Belgavi Police To Consider Hindu Sammelana Samithi’s Representation
The Karnataka High Court was considering a Petition filed by the Hindu Sammelana Samithi seeking a direction for quashing the Police notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner Of Police.
The Karnataka High Court has granted relief to Hindu Sammelana Samithi by asking the Belgavi Police to consider their representation seeking permission for activist Mithun Chakravarthy Devidas Shet @ Chakravarthy Sulibeli and Kumari Harika Manjunath to address the gathering. The High Court also held that merely because certain cases are registered against the speakers, that itself cannot be a reason for the police to pass such an order prohibiting them from participating/delivering speech in the Sammelan scheduled to be held on February 6, 2026 and February 8, 2026.
The High Court was considering a Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking a direction for quashing the Police notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Police. The petitioner sought a direction seeking permission to conduct ‘Virat Hindu Sammelana’ and permit Mithun Chakravarthy Devidas Shet @ Chakravarthy Sulibeli to address the gathering, considering the representation made by the petitioner.
The Single Bench of Justice Lalitha Kanneganti stated, “Just because certain cases are registered against the speakers, that itself cannot be a reason for the police to pass such an order prohibiting them from participating/delivering speech in the Sammelan, which is scheduled to be held on 06.02.2026 and 08.02.2026. The submission of learned AAG that certain cases are registered against these two speakers, in response it is submitted by the Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that they had already participated in similar such programs and nothing untoward instance had happened in those programs. This strengthens the case of the petitioner.”
Senior Counsel Aruna Shyam represented the Petitioner, while Additional Advocate General Gangadhar J.M. represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The petitioners submitted a representation to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, stating that the Hindu Sammelana would be near Shivalaya of Shahunagar, Belgavi and on the said day, one Kumari Harika Manjunath would address the gathering. The petitioners stated that the Sammelana would be held on February 6, 2026, near Sree Nagar, Sai Baba Temple, Belagavi. On the said day, one Mithun Chakravathy Devidas Shet @ Chakravathy Sulibeli, who is a wellknown writer, communist and orator, would address the gathering. Thereafter, the police in both cases issued the impugned notice and rejected the said request of the petitioners, prohibiting the participation of both the speakers, stating that criminal cases were registered against them. The rejection was based on the ground that permitting them to participate in the said Sammelana would give rise to law and order issues. In response to that, the petitioners submitted a reply stating that no cases were pending/ stayed by the High Court.
Reasoning
The Bench referred to Section 37 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, which states that when anyone wants to organise a program for the use of the loudspeakers, they need to make an application to the respondents. Section 39 deals with the issue of orders for maintenance of order and ceremonials, and Section 40 deals with the police to provide against disorder at places of amusement and public meetings.
The Bench noted that when the petitioners had sought permission, the respondents had come up with a notice/order impugned. By virtue of this notice, they had prohibited the two speakers from participating in the said summit.
The Bench stated, “Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India gives every citizen the right to freedom of speech and expression. Article 19(1)(b) gives the right to assemble peacefully. It is settled law that freedom of speech includes right to express view in public meeting. However, the State has the power to impose reasonable restriction in the interest of public order, security of State, sovereignty and integrity of India, decency or morality and prevention of incitement to office.”
The Bench explained that the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, permits the police to regulate public assemblies and processions. “They can prohibit the assembly, if there is apprehension of disturbance threat to public peace and tranquility and if there is any risk of violence. The police cannot arbitrarily stop a person from speaking in a public meeting basing on their whims and fancies. When the State is curtailing the citizens’ fundamental rights, it shall be based on reasoning and based on some material”, it added.
Holding that the order passed by the respondents was bereft of reasons, and the respondents cannot curtail the fundamental rights of the citizens in this manner, the Bench set aside the impugned notices. “The representations filed by the petitioners seeking permission shall be considered by the respondents in accordance with law particularly as per the Karnataka Police Act, 1963”, it ordered.
Cause Title: Hindu Sammelana Samithi v. The Commissioner of Police, Belagavi (Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC-D:1504)
Appearance
Petitioner: Senior Counsel Aruna Shyam, Advocate Suraj S. Mutnal
Respondent: Additional Advocate General Gangadhar J.M.