BENGALURU — In a sharp rebuke of preemptive action during ongoing litigation, the Karnataka High Court reprimanded public event organizers for putting up promotional hoardings and banners before judicial authorization had been formally granted.
Presiding over the matter, Justice Suraj Govindaraj sternly warned the petitioners against taking court proceedings for granted, observing that proceeding as if judicial approval is a mere formality undermines the rule of law.
Preemptive Banners Spark Judicial Ire
The case stems from a petition filed by the right-wing organization Hindu Jagarana Vedike alongside its local convener. The petitioners had approached the High Court challenging an endorsement issued by the Mysuru police on August 6, which denied permission to hold an Akhanda Bharatha Sankalpa Dina torchlight march and stage program scheduled for the eve of Independence Day.
The police had refused authorization citing concerns over law and order along the proposed 2.5-kilometer rally route in Mysuru. Contending that the denial was based on vague grounds, the petitioners argued that the event was a peaceful, patriotic demonstration commemorating historical national events.
However, during state submissions, Additional Advocate General Bhanu Prakash presented photographic evidence indicating that despite police refusal and an ongoing court challenge, promotional hoardings announcing the event had already been erected across public spaces on August 12.
Expressing deep displeasure at the developments, Justice Govindaraj questioned how publicity material could be put up while the petition was still pending adjudication.
"Even after the permission was rejected by the State, you have put up the hoardings? Where is the value for the rule of law?" the Court asked. "Without permission of the Court, you are going to celebrate? This is presumptuous. It is presumptuous that you are assuming this Court will allow it."
The bench observed that such actions do not inspire judicial confidence and risk amounting to an abuse of the court process.
Strict Liability and Accountable Organizers
The bench raised significant questions regarding public safety, administrative logistics, and liability. During earlier hearings on the petition, the High Court signaled a firm stance on accountability, indicating that if permissions were granted over executive objections, the burden of maintaining order would fall entirely on the organizers.
The Court explicitly invoked principles of strict liability, noting that the organization would not be permitted to shift blame onto state authorities or third parties should any disruption occur.
- Personal Responsibility: Organizers were instructed to submit explicit undertakings alongside the names of specific individuals who would take full personal and legal responsibility for the event.
- Cost of Security: The Court noted that if state police forces were required for security deployment during the procession, the petitioners would have to bear the financial costs of that deployment.
- Conditional Discretion: The bench reiterated that the constitutional right to peaceful assembly under Article 19(1)(b) remains subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order.
Counsel representing the petitioner contended that third parties and local supporters had installed some of the banners after obtaining municipal permits. The defense further argued that administrative delays in rejecting the application left organizers stranded after promotional materials and pamphlets had already been prepared, assuring the court that the group was willing to abide by any reasonable conditions imposed by the bench.
Broader Implications for Event Organizers
The High Court's observations underline an evolving judicial approach toward public demonstrations and preventive policing. By requiring named individuals to assume strict liability for potential law-and-order breakdowns, the court has signaled that seeking judicial intervention to override police decisions carries significant legal risks for event planners.
The bench adjourned the proceedings to finalize directions regarding the conditional parameters and administrative responsibilities governing the proposed gathering.
Discription: The Karnataka High Court reprimanded the group Hindu Jagarana Vedike for erecting promotional hoardings before obtaining judicial permission for a planned torchlight rally in Mysuru.
The police had rejected permission for the August 14 event on security grounds, prompting the group to challenge the decision in court. However, state counsel revealed that promotional banners were put up while the petition was still pending.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj criticized the organization's presumptuous behavior, emphasizing that proceeding as if approval were guaranteed undermines the rule of law. The court warned that if the event proceeds, organizers must take personal responsibility for any disruption, submit named undertakings, and cover the cost of any required police security deployment.