Karnataka High Court Orders Judicial Inquiry into Police Lathi Charge on Panchamasali Protestors at Suvarna Soudha, Directs Commission to Be Headed by Retired High Court Judge
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Karnataka at Dhawad, Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna directed the State Government to constitute a Commission of Inquiry under the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 to investigate the police action undertaken on 10 December 2024 at Suvarna Soudha, Belagavi. The Court allowed the writ petition and issued a mandamus to the respondents for the constitution of the Commission, to be headed by a retired Judge of the High Court. The Court further directed that the Commission submit its report within three months from the date of appointment and that the State place its decision on the report before the Court in due course.
The petition was filed by four individuals belonging to the Panchamasali community, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to constitute a Commission of Inquiry under the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952. The relief was sought in relation to a lathi charge that occurred on 10 December 2024 during a protest held near Suvarna Soudha, Belagavi, where the petitioners and others were allegedly peacefully assembled.
The petitioners contended that the community had been advocating for the implementation of a Government Order dated 27 March 2023, which granted them reservation under Category II(D) with a 7% quota. The Government Order became subject to challenge before the Supreme Court in W.P.(C) No. 435 of 2023, in which the State undertook not to implement the order until further directions. Despite this, the petitioners made several representations to the Chief Minister and the Governor, expressing dissatisfaction with the lack of implementation.
As the State Government convened its winter session in Belagavi, the petitioners decided to hold a peaceful protest. On 8 December 2024, the Deputy Commissioner of Belagavi issued an order prohibiting all vehicles from entering the Suvarna Soudha area. This was later modified on 9 December 2024, disallowing the protest entirely. The modified order was challenged in W.P. No. 107452 of 2024, which was disposed of by permitting the petitioners to enter Belagavi city and conduct a peaceful protest at a designated location, with the condition that no tractors be used and law and order be maintained.
Following this, approximately 10,000 individuals assembled in Kondaskoppa village, located about 1.5 kilometres from Suvarna Soudha, and held a preparatory meeting attended by several Members of the Legislative Assembly. After the meeting, some members of the gathering decided to march toward Suvarna Soudha to submit a representation to the Chief Minister.
The petitioners alleged that without provocation, police authorities charged at the assembled group and resorted to lathi charge, which resulted in grave injuries to several individuals. They submitted photographs, medical reports, and a pen drive containing video footage to support their claims. It was further contended that the police action was ordered by the Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order) and undertaken without prior legal notice or invocation of lawful powers.
In response, the State filed objections contending that the protestors were not victims but aggressors. It was alleged that the protestors broke out of the designated protest area, removed barricades, and attempted to march toward the National Highways. The State submitted that the police resorted to lathi charge only after issuing warnings and as a last resort to maintain law and order. It was further stated that the petitioners violated the High Court’s directions in W.P. No. 107452 of 2024. The State also averred that Section 144 of the CrPC had been invoked, although no documentation supporting this claim was submitted to the Court.
Both parties submitted pen drives containing video footage of the protest. These were viewed by the Court as part of the proceedings. Based on the incident, Crime No. 174 of 2024 was registered against the protestors under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna framed the issue for consideration as: “Whether the case at hand necessitates Commission of Inquiry to be constituted to enquire into the allegations and contra allegations qua incident that has happened on 10-12-2024?”
The Court recorded: “The petitioners who are the beneficiaries of the said Government order made several representations to all the concerned including the Chief Minister... No response from the State led the members of the community to peacefully protest the apathy of the Government.”
After reviewing the procedural history, the Court noted: “After the order in Writ Petition No.107452 of 2024, close to 10,000 persons assembled in Kondaskoppa Village... Several members of Legislative Assembly also participated in the meeting... They then decided to peacefully walk towards Suvarna Soudha and assemble there.”
The Court documented the petitioners’ claims regarding the police action: “It is alleged that the Police machinery charged towards the members assembled there preventing them from approaching Suvarna Soudha and ordered lathi charge totally unprovoked which resulted in grave injuries to several members of the crowd assembled at the said place.”
After viewing the submitted video materials, the Court recorded: “The contents of the pen drive produced by the petitioners have been viewed... The contents of the pen drive so produced by the respondents are also viewed.” It further stated: “The viewing of contents of both the pen drives would depict seriously disputed questions of fact. While the protestors were lathi charged, the reason for lathi charge is missing in both the pen drives.”
The Court acknowledged the allegations made in the State’s objections: “The objections also aver that Section 144 Cr.P.C. was invoked, but no document is produced for such invocation.”
Referring to the factual complexity of the case, the Court observed: “There are allegations and contra-allegations. There is electronic content versus electronic content. The protest in the content appear to be peaceful at the beginning. What happened later is necessary to be enquired into, as the public meeting that was held prior to the protest was attended by the Legislators.”
Addressing the State’s assertion that the protestors were under the influence of alcohol, the Court noted: “The learned Advocate General makes a feign attempt in submitting that the protestors were drunk... It is surprising that a statement of the kind is made, as the protestors at the outset of the protest had within its fold MLAs, the pontiff and all others.”
The Court referred to the legal position regarding Section 144 CrPC as held by the Supreme Court in Ramlila Maidan Incident in Re and Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, stating: “The Apex Court... holds that Section 144 Cr.P.C. being remedial as well as preventive, is exercisable not only where there exists present danger, but also when there is an apprehension of danger. But, the said power cannot be used to suppress legitimate expression of opinion or grievance or exercise of democratic rights.”
For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition was allowed. A mandamus was issued to the respondents, directing the State to constitute a Commission of Inquiry under the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 on the subject matter. The Commission so constituted shall be either a single-member or multi-member body, and shall be headed by a retired Judge of the High Court. The Commission is required to submit its report within three months from the date of its appointment. All other reliefs sought in the petition shall remain subject to the findings and conclusions contained in the inquiry report. The State is further directed to place its decision on the inquiry report before the Court in due course.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Sri Prabhuling Navadagi, Senior Advocate assisted by Smt. Pooja R. Savadatti, Advocate and Smt. Sanjeevini Navadagi, Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri Shashikiran Shetty, Advocate General; Sri Gangadhar J. M., Additional Advocate General; and Sri Sharad V. Magadum, Additional Government Advocate
Case Title: Sri Jagadguru Basava Jaymrityunjay Swamiji & Others v. State of Karnataka & Others
Case Number: W.P. No. 107792 of 2024
Bench: Justice M. Nagaprasanna
[Read/Download order]
