Karnataka High Court Closes RSS Convenor's Plea After State Permits Route March In Chittapur For Centenary Celebrations

Update: 2025-11-13 10:03 GMT
Click the Play button to listen to article
story

The Karnataka High Court, on Thursday, disposed of a petition filed by the Convenor of RSS Kalaburagi for holding a proposed march (Pathasanchalana) in Chittapur Town.Justice MGS Kamal took into account the order issued by the Tahsildar of Chittapur Town granting permission for the route march on November 16, by imposing certain conditions. In the previous hearing, the State had informed...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

The Karnataka High Court, on Thursday, disposed of a petition filed by the Convenor of RSS Kalaburagi for holding a proposed march (Pathasanchalana) in Chittapur Town.

Justice MGS Kamal took into account the order issued by the Tahsildar of Chittapur Town granting permission for the route march on November 16, by imposing certain conditions. In the previous hearing, the State had informed the court that it would positively consider the proposal for the route march. 

When the matter was taken up today, Senior Advocate Aruna Shyam, appearing for the Convenor, said that the petitioner was grateful to the authorities for granting permission. He, however, requested that the condition limiting the number of participants to 300 and the number of members in the band to 25 be modified, allowing 600 people to participate and 50 members in the band. 

To this, AG Shashi Kiran Shetty submitted that the numbers were fixed after detailed consideration, taking into account the number of participants in the previous meetings conducted by the petitioner in the nearby areas. 

Shyam submitted that the meeting was being conducted on a special occasion, marking 100 years of the organisation and the request was being made as a one time measure considering the sentiments of the people. 

"We're just concerned with the sentiments of people nearby. It's the 100 year celebration of the association. It's a special occasion. That is why we are requesting a one time measure," Shyam said. 

Shyam also requested that at least the number of members in the band be increased from 25 to 50. The AG did not object to the same. Noting this, the court made changes to the second condition imposed in the Tahsildar's order, increasing the number of members in the band to 50. 

The court then dictated its order:

"Order dated 12.11.2025, passed by the office of Tahsildar, Chittapur, according permission to the petitioner to conduct a march is placed on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while appreciating and acknowledging the effort by the state for granting permission, requests that the maximum 300 participants in the route march granted be increased to 600 and limit of 25 persons in band be increased to 50. He submits that it is being requested as a one-time measure...

In response, AG submits that the number of 300 is limited, taking into view the route march done by the petitioner in nearby areas, which was in the range of 100-150, and the number is fixed based on data collected from surrounding areas. Senior counsel submits at least the authority may permit 50 members in band instead of 25 which is accepted ny AG. Expect this, rest of the order remains same..."

The court thus permitted the route march to be conducted on 16th November with 300 members and a band strength of 50 persons.

It may be noted that on October 18, the Karnataka Government had issued a Government Order, prohibiting gatherings of ten or more persons for peaceful civic, social, or cultural activities in public places and declared such assemblies as unlawful. This GO would have prevented political parties from organising route marches, similar to the one prayed for in the present plea. However, the GO was stayed by a single judge of the High Court holding that it prima facie takes away the fundamental rights of freedom of speech and expression and congregation rights, guaranteed under Chapter III of the Constitution. An appeal against the stay order was also dismissed by the HC.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr Aruna Shyam, Senior Advocate

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Shashi Kiran Shetty, Advocate General

Case title: Ashok Patil AND The Deputy Commissioner & Others

Case No: WP 203166 of 2025

 Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 382

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Tags:    

Similar News