'Proceeds On Conjecture, Devoid Of Reasons': Karnataka High Court Quashes Order Barring Seer's Entry In Dharwad For Two Months

The Karnataka High Court (Dharwad bench) on Tuesday (November 25) set aside a prohibitory order dated November 04 passed against Adrushya Kadeshwara Swamiji, restraining him from entering the territorial limits of Dharwad district, for the period commencing from November 05 till January 03 next year.

Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition and said:

"The order is devoid of reasons, proceeds purely on conjectures for imposition of restraint of manifestly excessive duration. Thus, the impugned order fails the test of constitutionality and legality.”

The order was passed invoking Section 163(4) of the BNSS, 2023. The petitioner argued that the prohibitory order takes away the fundamental right of movement of the petitioner and therefore, it cannot be passed without any rhyme or reason and the order suffers from non-application of mind. It was argued that the order is in violation of the principles of natural justice.

The State opposed the plea submitting, that as a matter of abundant caution, apprehending that the petitioner would generate disharmony amongst the people of the locality, the prohibitory order was passed.

It was submitted that the State is well within its power to pass a prohibitory order on the basis of the report obtained from the hands of the jurisdictional police and there cannot be a fetter on the State's power to pass a prohibitory order owing to the apprehension of law and order situation.

Reference was also made to a coordinate bench judgement passed by the Kalaburagi bench dismissing a petition by the petitioner filed challenging a similar prohibitory order which was confirmed by the Supreme Court.

The bench on going through the records and referring to judgements passed by Apex court and High Courts said:

“If the order impugned is examined on the touchstone of the principles delineated by the Apex Court as well as different High Courts, it becomes evident that the order is wholly indefensible and thus, unsustainable.”

"The order fails to record the existence of any emergent situation that could conceivably justify a restraint enduring for as long as two months. The mere fact that the statute permits a maximum duration of two months, does not bestow upon the Authority a license to exercise such power in a cursory and cavalier manner as reflected in the present case," Justice Nagaprassana said. 

Further it said “There is an absence of any record for subjective satisfaction on the part of the respondent, that an ex-parte order was warranted. Equally absent is any indication of prevailing emergency vis à-vis. the petitioner that could justify a restraint of such disproportionate length.”

The court noted that the order passed by the coordinate bench at Kalaburagi had been pressed into service as the sole basis. “This unmistakably suggests that no other material exists against the petitioner,” it said.

The court noted that prohibitory order is passed for two months, while the programme which was to be attended by the petitioner was only for three days between 05.11.2025 and 07.11.2025.

Allowing the petition the court said “The undertaking furnished by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner would conduct himself with restraint and shall not transgress the bounds of liberty now accorded, stands duly recorded.”

Appearance: Advocate Venkatesh P Dalwai a/w Advocate Ganapati M Bhat for Petitioner.

AAG Gangadhar J M a/w AGA T Hanumareddy for Respondents.

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 401

Case Title: SRI ADRUSHYA KADESHWARA SWAMIJI AND THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.108686 OF 2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order