Karnataka High Court Upholds Prohibitory Order Against Spiritual Leader to Maintain Public Order
Court dismisses writ petition challenging the restraining order citing credible intelligence and need for public peace
In a significant judgment, the Karnataka High Court, Kalaburagi Bench, upheld a prohibitory order preventing Sri. Adrushya Kadeshwara Swamiji, a renowned spiritual leader, from entering Vijayapura District. The order, issued by the Deputy Commissioner on October 15, 2025, restrains the petitioner from entering the district from October 16 to December 14, 2025. Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum presided over the case, emphasizing the balance between individual rights and public order.
The court's decision came in response to a writ petition filed by the petitioner, challenging the prohibitory order as arbitrary and politically motivated. The petitioner intended to attend a religious event in Vijayapura, but the administration cited credible intelligence inputs suggesting his presence could lead to unrest due to recent provocative statements made by him.
The court noted that the right to movement under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions. Referring to past Supreme Court judgments, the court highlighted that freedom of movement cannot jeopardize public peace and order. The court found the prohibitory order to be a narrowly tailored preventive measure based on credible intelligence, thus not violating the petitioner's fundamental rights.
The court underscored the responsibility of spiritual leaders to maintain composure and act with restraint, especially given their influence on followers. It observed that the petitioner's recent statements were inconsistent with the moral standards expected of a religious leader, potentially inciting unrest.
The judgment aligns with previous rulings, such as in the case of Dr. Praveen Togadia, where similar orders were upheld to safeguard public order. The court reaffirmed that judicial review of such preventive orders is limited to examining the decision-making process rather than the decision itself, focusing on the necessity and proportionality of the restriction.
Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition, validating the order as a legitimate exercise of power aimed at preserving public tranquillity. The petitioner was advised to renew his request for entry post the restriction period, subject to the law and order situation at that time.
Bottom Line:
Prohibitory orders issued under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, aimed at preventing imminent disturbances to public order, are valid if based on credible intelligence inputs and relevant material, and do not violate Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution when tailored to prevent public unrest.
Statutory provision(s): Article 19(1)(d), Article 19(5) of the Constitution of India, Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
