Kasol Rave Parties : Supreme Court Stays HC Direction For FIR Against Himachal Officers, Upholds Transfer

The Supreme Court today stayed the Himachal Pradesh High Court's direction for registration of an FIR and constitution of an SIT for departmental proceedings against Kullu's Deputy Commissioner and Superintendent of Police over the administration's 'tacit permission' to rave parties.

The Court however maintained the direction for the two officers' transfer, adding that the direction for transfer be implemented immediately. It was observed that the transfer was necessary for insulating the case from them.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with the Kullu DC and SP's pleas against the Himachal Pradesh High Court order which observed that the two officers, as well as the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, failed in their duty of maintaining public order and rather, facilitated the organization of large-scale rave parties.

Among other things, the High Court bench had noted that permission to hold the parties was granted to persons who had criminal antecedents (including, under the NDPS Act) and despite an adverse report given by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (which recommended that the permission be not given).

To recap, the High Court passed the impugned order while dealing with a batch of petitions concerning illegal rave parties and drug abuse in Kullu and adjoining areas. Taking serious note of events held between June 7 and 11, 2026 at Green Forest venues near Kasol, the Court said the case reflected a “classical case of abject surrender” by the Deputy Commissioner, Kullu and the Superintendent of Police.

The High Court noted that despite prior judicial scrutiny of drug-related issues and a specific warning report by the Deputy Superintendent of Police highlighting the likelihood of narcotics use and unlawful activities, permission for the events was still granted by the authorities.

A report by the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), based on a site inspection, confirmed large gatherings of 3,000–5,000 persons, presence of liquor without permit, recovery of drug-related materials such as rolling papers, and seizure of CCTV footage. Two FIRs were registered after police intervention, and two tourists were found in possession of cocaine and LSD. The Court also took note of the suspected drug overdose death of a foreign national DJ.

Aggrieved by the order, the petitioners approached the Supreme Court.

Appearing for the petitioners, Senior Advocate Madhavi Diwan contended that the High Court passed the impugned order without allowing the officers to respond to the DSLA report. In response to her submission that the subject events were "rock concerts" and not "rave parties", Justice Bagchi commented, "That's a euphemism. Concerts are the cover-up".

When Diwan claimed that the order had the effect of giving a bad name to the State, the judge countered that the administration's choice to ignore the DSP's report "gave it a bad name".

"We are at a loss...after the report of the DSP of that area (putting to notice serious apprehensions of breach of law and order if such parties are permitted), how the police gives a nod to the license for sound etc. for that party? And that too, where a person is an acquitted accused from an NDPS case and had allegation of molestation of women?" J Bagchi commented.

Subsequently, Diwan averred that the High Court proceeded with an inherent aversion to such parties and the order of transfer "stigmatized" the officers. Justice Bagchi however noted that transfer was one of the least serious consequences.

Diwan later submitted that similar parties/concerts are held in the capital as well and the petitioners had put in place a Standard Operating Procedure apprehending any drug-related event. "There were measures taken. Things happen but that doesn't mean you should put a stop to the rock concert. You have to take measures and we did take measures. This amounts to a stigma without hearing us at any stage", she urged.

The senior counsel also informed that a report on the CCTV camera footage of the site was yet to come and no drug had been recovered from the site. Issuing notice, the CJI said, "transfer has to be immediate. you can't be allowed to serve there".

"We consider further enquiry into the matter insulated from your presence. That is why we have...it's more in a protective nature that we secured implementation of transfer", added Justice Bagchi.

Appearance: Senior Advocate Madhavi Diwan and AoR Sugandha Anand (for petitioners)

Case Title: ANURAG CHANDER SHARMA Versus HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, THROUGH REGISTRAR GENERAL AND ORS. Diary No. 42382-2026 (and connected case)