Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Karnataka Single Bench of Justice Lalitha Kanneganti set aside police notices that barred two proposed speakers from addressing the “Hindu Sammelana” programmes scheduled for February 6 and 8 in Belagavi and directed the police to reconsider the organisers’ permission requests in accordance with law. The petitions were filed by event organisers challenging the State Police action that declined to allow the speakers to participate, citing registration of criminal cases and apprehended law-and-order issues. The court held that the police cannot stop a person from speaking at a public meeting on an arbitrary basis, and that any State action curtailing citizens’ fundamental rights must rest on reasons and supporting material.

The petitioners, organisers of separate “Hindu Sammelana” events in Belagavi, submitted representations dated 13.01.2026 seeking permission to conduct public gatherings on 06.02.2026 and 08.02.2026 and to allow specified speakers to address the assemblies. The Assistant Commissioner of Police issued notices dated 22.01.2026 rejecting the request insofar as participation of the proposed speakers was concerned, stating that criminal cases were registered against them and their participation could give rise to law and order issues. The petitioners thereafter submitted replies on 31.01.2026 asserting that no cases were pending or that proceedings were stayed by the High Court.

Also Read: Supreme Court Rejects TN Cadre IPS Officer’s Claim For 2004 Rajasthan Cadre Insider Vacancy

Before the Court, the petitioners contended that the impugned notices were contrary to the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 and violative of principles of natural justice and fundamental rights. The respondents submitted that earlier instances involving the speakers had led to law-and-order issues and that the notices were precautionary in nature. Sections 37, 39, and 40 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 were placed on record.

The Court observed that “the respondents in both the writ petitions are one and the same and the impugned notice/order passed by the respondents is identical in both the writ petitions.” It recorded that “as per Section 37 of the KP Act, when anyone wants to organize a program, for use of the loudspeakers, they need to make an application to the respondents.”

Referring to constitutional guarantees, the Court stated that “Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India gives every citizen the right to freedom of speech and expression” and that “Article 19(1)(b) gives the right to assemble peacefully.” It further recorded that “it is settled law that freedom of speech includes right to express view in public meeting.”

At the same time, the Court noted that “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.” It observed that “the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 permits the police to regulate the public assemblies and processions.” The Court added that “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.”

However, the Court stated that “the police cannot arbitrarily stop a person from speaking in a public meeting basing on their whims and fancies.” It further recorded that “when the State is curtailing the citizens’ fundamental rights, it shall be based on reasoning and based on some material.”

With reference to the fact that cases were registered against the speakers, the Court observed that “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.” It noted that the petitioners had submitted that the speakers had earlier participated in similar programs and that “nothing untoward instance had happened in those programs.”

The Court ultimately recorded that “the order that is passed by the respondents is bereft of reasons and the respondents cannot curtail the fundamental rights of the citizens in this manner.”

Also Read: Victim’s Evidence Inconsistent, Not Trustworthy: Karnataka High Court Dismisses State Appeal, Upholds Acquittal In POCSO Case

The Court directed that “the impugned notices dated 22.01.2026 bearing Javaka Nos.180 and 181 of 2026 issued by the respondents are hereby set aside. 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. The respondents are directed to act strictly in accordance with law. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are disposed of” and that “all I.As. in this writ petition shall stand closed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Sri. Aruna Shyam, Senior Counsel for Sri. Suraj S. Mutnal, Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri. Gangadhar J.M., Additional Advocate General

Case Title: Hindu Sammelana Samithi v. Commissioner of Police & Ors.
Neutral Citation: NC: 2026: KHC-D:1504
Case Number: W.P. No. 100782 of 2026 C/W W.P. No. 100783 of 2026
Bench: Justice Lalitha Kanneganti