Karnataka High Court Asks State To Form Comprehensive Policy For Regulating Homestays, Suggests 10-Point Framework

The single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj observed that there is an 'increasing number of disputes and petitions' arising out of 'actions taken against homestays on the basis of complaints received from tourists, neighbouring residents, local authorities and other stakeholders'.

It said that while the Act undoubtedly provides for the Registration and regulation of tourism trade establishments, including homestays, however, the operation of a homestay involves numerous aspects that traverse several statutory and regulatory domains and which cannot be effectively addressed merely through Registration under the  Act.

"A homestay is not merely a commercial establishment; it is a place where members of the public reside, often for extended periods, and where food, accommodation and related services are provided. Consequently, considerations of public safety, health, hygiene, security, consumer protection and civic compliance assume considerable significance"

It thus underscored the necessity of a comprehensive regulatory framework for the homestays and the benefits accrued by such a systematic approach.

“… It would enhance tourist safety, promote confidence in Karnataka as a tourist destination, ensure uniformity in enforcement, reduce regulatory ambiguity, facilitate ease of compliance for operators, protect neighbouring communities, minimise avoidable litigation and foster sustainable growth of the tourism sector. Such a framework would also assist authorities in taking informed and legally sustainable decisions while ensuring that actions affecting homestay operators are undertaken in a fair, transparent and predictable manner”, the court said.

The court thus suggested a ten-point framework/checklist which can form part of the proposed homestay policy by the state government:

1. Fire Safety: Adequate fire-prevention measures, emergency exits, fire-fighting equipment, evacuation protocols, and periodic inspections are essential to safeguard the lives of guests and occupants to avoid catastrophic consequences

2. Food Safety: Compliance with applicable food safety standards, hygiene requirements, storage norms, and quality standards prescribed under the relevant food safety laws to avoid food borne illnesses or contamination

3.Building Compliance: Compliance with zoning regulations, building by-laws, occupancy norms, sanitation requirements, waste-management obligations, and environmental regulations to preserve local infrastructure and ecological sensitivity

4.Guest Security: Maintenance of accurate guest records, verification of identity documents, and cooperation with law-enforcement agencies to tackle criminal activities, trafficking, cybercrime etc.

5. Consumer Protection: Uniform disclosure standards, minimum service requirements, and grievance redressal mechanisms to address issues relating to pricing, cancellation policies, refunds, and hidden charges and ensure stability.

6. Sanitation and Environmental Standards: Minimum standards relating to sanitation, cleanliness, drinking water, waste disposal, sewage management, and environmental sustainability to safeguard public health and environment in areas with large influx of tourists.

7. Delineation of Responsibilities: A clear delineation of the responsibilities of various governmental authorities involved in regulation, including tourism, food safety, fire safety, local administration, public health, police verification, taxation, and environmental compliance to improve administrative efficiency

8. Structured Inspection and Enforcement: A transparent, accountable, and non-arbitrary inspection and enforcement mechanism, including provisions for periodic inspections, issuance of notices, opportunity to rectify deficiencies, graded penalties, and an effective appellate mechanism

9. Proportionate Regulation: A distinction between small family-run homestays and larger commercial establishments, with regulatory requirements proportionate to the scale and nature of operations.

10. Other Requirements: The above being examples, there may be many more requirements which the experts would have to identify and address in the policy to be formulated, the court says in the order leaving it open for the authorities to add further aspects.

“…In view of the increasing importance of the homestay sector and the recurring disputes brought before this Court, it would be appropriate for the Principal Secretary, Department of Tourism, Government of Karnataka, in consultation with the Departments concerned, to examine the feasibility of formulating a comprehensive policy and regulatory framework governing the establishment, operation and supervision of homestays in the State," the court observed in its order.

The court passed the order while setting aside of license revocation of a man's homestay, pursuant to the alleged sexual assault of a US national who was a guest at his property. 

"The record does not disclose the issuance of any show-cause notice, the grant of a reasonable opportunity to submit objections, or the conduct of any enquiry preceding the impugned action. In the absence of compliance with the statutory procedure, the decision-making process stands vitiated," the high court said. 

The court quashed the license cancellation order, reserving liberty to the respondents to proceed afresh in accordance with law, after complying with the statutory requirements and the principles of natural justice. 

Noting that the license cancellation order issued by Deputy Commissioner and Chairman of the District Tourism Development Committee, Kodagu, was 'without notice', the court directed that the order shall be 'read down as a show cause notice'.

The court asked the respondent authorities to pass necessary orders in accordance with the Karnataka Tourism Trade (Facilitation and Regulation) Act, 2015 within a period of two weeks.

The matter will be called again on July 20 for ensuring the order's compliance and for enabling Principal Secretary, Department of Tourism, to place before the court the policy formulated in line with the court's directions.

In a related matter, a coordinate bench had on June 10 orally flagged the security risk concerning the "mushrooming of homestays" across the state, remarking that no one no longer knows where these accommodations are and what was happening there.

Adv. Angad Kamath appeared for the petitioner homestay owner whereas HCGP Shamanth Naik represented the state of Karnataka and its Tourism Department Officials.

Case Title: Sri P.A. Ponnappa v. State of Karnataka & Ors.

Case No: WP 17310/2026