Karnataka High Court | Participation Of Non-Hindu In State-Sponsored Dasara Inauguration Does Not Violate Religious Freedom Under Articles 25 & 26
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Karnataka, Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Joshi dismissed petitions seeking withdrawal of the State’s invitation to author and Booker Prize winner Banu Mushtaq as Chief Guest for the Dasara festival inauguration at the Chamundeshwari Temple. The Court held that the invitation did not contravene Articles 25 or 26 of the Constitution, which concern freedom of religion and management of religious affairs. It observed that the Dasara inauguration is a State-sponsored cultural function, and inviting a non-Hindu to preside over the ceremony does not infringe constitutional rights.
The writ petitions were filed before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, challenging the State Government’s decision to invite Ms. Banu Mushtaq, a 78-year-old author and Booker Prize winner, as the Chief Guest for the inauguration of the Dasara festival scheduled to be held on 22 September 2025 at the Chamundeshwari Temple atop Chamundi Hills, Mysuru. The petitions were heard by a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Joshi.
The petitioners contended that the inauguration involved active participation in Hindu religious rituals such as lighting of the ceremonial lamp, offering flowers and fruits to the deity, and participation in Vedic prayers. They argued that inviting a person not belonging to the Hindu faith violated religious sentiments and traditions. They also relied on excerpts from a past speech of Ms. Mushtaq, which they claimed was derogatory to Hindu beliefs and Kannada identity. Citing Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, they asserted that the invitation infringed upon the right to freely profess and practice religion and upon denominational rights to manage religious affairs.
The petitioners further referred to precedents including Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Shirur Mutt (1954), Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam v. Government of Tamil Nadu (2016), and Sri Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore (1958) to support their claim that religious practices under Agamic traditions must be preserved.
In response, the State submitted that the Dasara inauguration is a State-sponsored cultural event and not a ritual exclusive to the temple administration. It was argued that accomplished individuals from varied fields, including scientists and educationists, had been invited in previous years, and religious identity had never been the criterion. The State relied on a 2016 circular mandating equal access to temples for all persons irrespective of faith and emphasized that no constitutional provision prohibited participation of a non-Hindu in the inaugural function. The State also noted that the invitation was extended after deliberation by a committee comprising elected representatives and government officials.
The Bench recorded that “whilst the petitioners have expressed their sentiments regarding the impugned invitation extended to respondent No.4, we are unable to accept that the said invitation offends Articles 25 or 26 of the Constitution of India.” It observed that the Dasara festivities were organised annually by the State and that accomplished individuals from varied fields such as science, education, literature, and social service had been invited in the past.
The court noted that the invitee was a “2025 Booker Prize winner” and had also served in multiple public positions. It further observed that the decision to invite her was taken by a committee comprising elected representatives and government officials.
In its constitutional analysis, the Bench reproduced Articles 25 and 26 and stated, “Clearly, none of the guarantees recognized under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India are offended in this case.” It recorded that the petitioners’ rights to practice or propagate religion were not curtailed by the State’s decision.
On the reliance placed by the petitioners on judicial precedents, the Bench recorded that “the reliance placed by the petitioner on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt and Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam… is misplaced.” The court detailed that those cases involved disputes regarding Mathadhipatis’ rights or appointments of Archakas, which were inapplicable to the present matter.
Regarding the cited Madras High Court decision in D. Senthilkumar, the Bench noted it concerned entry of tourists into sanctum sanctorum for non-religious purposes. Similarly, the judgment in Sri Venkataramana Devaru was held inapplicable as it involved whether denominational rights under Article 26(b) were subject to laws enacted under Article 25(2)(b).
The Bench concluded: “Participation of a person practicing a particular faith or religion, in celebrations of festivals of other religion does not offend the rights available under Constitution of India. In our view, the extension of invitation to respondent No.4 does not fall foul of any of the values enshrined in the Constitution of India.”
The High Court directed: “In the present case, we are unable to accept that any legal or constitutional right of the petitioners is violated by extending the invitation to respondent No.4 to inaugurate the State sponsored Dasara festivities.” The Bench held that “these petitions are unmerited and accordingly dismissed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Sri Rajavardhana Reddy B., Advocate; Sri S. Sudharsan, Advocate; Sri Anand N.S., Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri K. Shashikiran Shetty, Advocate General assisted by Smt. Prathima Honnapura, Additional Advocate General, and Smt. Niloufer Akbar, Additional Government Advocate
Case Title: Sri H.S. Gaurav & Ors v. State of Karnataka & Ors
Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC:36477-DB
Case Number: W.P. No. 27824/2025 C/W W.P. No. 27595/2025 and W.P. No. 27692/2025
Bench: Chief Justice Vibhu Bakru, Justice C M Joshi
