“Abuse Of Power”: Karnataka High Court Directs To Initiate Departmental Inquiry Against Police Inspector For Interfering In Dispute Between Religious Institutions
The Karnataka High Court was dealing with a Writ Petition seeking a direction for the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against a Police Inspector.
The Karnataka High Court has directed to initiate a departmental inquiry against a Police Inspector for interfering in a dispute between two religious institutions.
The Dharwad Bench was dealing with a Writ Petition seeking a direction by issuance of a Writ of Mandamus not to coerce the Petitioner/Mutt or its Manager to hand over keys as well as custody and control of Sri Narahariteertha Swamy Brundavana situated at Ventapura Village. A further direction was sought for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the Police Inspector.
A Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed, “… 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. There is material in the case at hand to demonstrate that the 3rd 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.”
Advocate Madhukar Deshpande appeared for the Petitioner while Additional Government Advocate (AGA) Sharad V. Magadum and Advocate B.C. Jnanayyaswami appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Petitioner i.e., Uttaradi Mutt instituted a Suit against Sri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt seeking a relief of permanent injunction restraining from disturbing the performance of Aradhana of Sri Naraharitheertha Swamy Brundavana. The Suit was decreed and a Restraint Order was passed against Sri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and hence, an Appeal was preferred before the First Appellate Court, challenging the Judgment and Decree. The Court confirmed the said Decree and being aggrieved, a Second Appeal was preferred. This was allowed by an Order of the Coordinate Bench, reversing the concurrent findings and dismissing the Suit filed by the Petitioner.
The issue in the lis was not with regard to merit of those Orders. It was the averment in the Petition that the Manager of the Petitioner/Mutt who was staying at Hospet, received a call from the Circle Inspector of Kamalapura Police Station, Hospet Taluk (Respondent) under whose jurisdiction the Petitioner/Mutt comes. In the said call, the Petitioner/Mutt was directed by the Respondent to hand over keys of Brundavana to the devotees of Sri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt. It is at this juncture, the Petitioner was before the High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court in view of the above facts, noted, “The only fault, perhaps, was registering a complaint against the Sri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt. All these happen due to the third respondent’s undue indulgence shown in interfering in the functioning or the dispute between the two religious institutions.”
The Court said that the Police should keep out of religious disputes, unless situation warrants.
“… 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”, it further remarked.
The Court was of the view that there was no Order of any Court for the Respondent to call the Petitioner and ask handing over of the keys and in a purely civil matter, the Police have sought to interfere.
“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”, it also noted.
The Court, therefore, directed that the departmental inquiry shall be guided to unearth the fact as to what led the Respondent; who led the 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.
“The departmental inquiry so directed shall be conducted in strict consonance with principles of natural justice and affording of reasonable opportunity to the petitioner”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court partly allowed the Writ Petition and directed the Police Commissioner, Dharwad to initiate a departmental inquiry against the Police Inspector.
Cause Title- Uttaradi Mutt v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (Case Number: Writ Petition No.100199 of 2025)
