Introduction:

In Punashchetana Seva Samste & Others v. State of Karnataka & Others, W.P. No. 107929/2025, the Karnataka High Court presided over by Justice M. Nagaprasanna addressed the legal validity of the State Government’s order declaring peaceful civic, cultural, and social gatherings of ten or more persons as “unlawful.” The petitioners challenged the executive order as an unconstitutional restriction on the freedoms of speech, expression, and assembly guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and (b) of the Constitution. The Court had earlier stayed the impugned Government Order on October 28, a stay which was subsequently upheld by a Division Bench on November 6. When the matter resurfaced, the Advocate General urged the Court to restrict the benefit of the interim stay to the petitioners alone. However, the Single Judge rejected this request, observing that once an order is found to prima facie violate constitutional guarantees, its stay cannot be confined to a limited group. The Court extended the interim relief to the entire State and granted the Government time to file objections before the matter proceeds for final hearing.

Arguments of the Petitioners:

The petitioners argued that the Government Order banning gatherings of ten or more people for civic, social, and cultural activities amounted to a direct assault on fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a) and (b). They contended that the State cannot curtail constitutional freedoms through executive notifications, as Article 13(2) expressly bars the State from making any law—much less issuing a Government Order—that abridges or takes away fundamental rights. They submitted that peaceful assembly is integral to democratic participation, public expression, cultural life, and community engagement, and that classifying such gatherings as “unlawful” without legislative backing or constitutional justification was grossly arbitrary. The petitioners also highlighted that such restrictions could not be imposed without meeting the requirement of reasonableness under Article 19(2) and 19(3). They emphasised that the order was vague, sweeping, and disproportionate, with no material showing any immediate threat to public order. They further argued that the State’s attempt to enforce the order selectively would have a chilling effect on civil society, placing citizens under perpetual fear of criminalization for ordinary activities such as cultural functions, protests, awareness campaigns, or community events. They therefore urged the Court to not only stay the Order but also ensure that interim protection extended statewide, as constitutional rights cannot be limited only to litigants.

Arguments of the State / Respondent:

The State, through the Advocate General, defended the legality of the Government Order and argued that the interim stay granted earlier should apply only to the petitioners, not the public at large. The State maintained that the Government Order was issued in the interest of maintaining law and order and preventing gatherings that could potentially lead to disturbances. It was submitted that executive authorities have the power to regulate assemblies in public places and impose restrictions deemed necessary for security considerations. The State further pointed out that any decision on the constitutionality of the order was still pending, and therefore, extending blanket relief to non-petitioners would amount to pre-judging the legality of the Order before the matter is adjudicated finally. The Advocate General also argued that the petitioners could not seek universal suspension of the Order without a complete challenge on merits. He requested additional time to file detailed objections and contended that until the State’s stand is fully presented, the Court should refrain from issuing statewide directions. The State also highlighted that an appeal had already been filed before the Division Bench challenging the earlier interim stay, though the Division Bench dismissed it, noting that the issues raised were yet to be examined by the Single Judge.

Court’s Judgment:

The Karnataka High Court, in a detailed and constitutionally grounded order delivered by Justice M. Nagaprasanna, reaffirmed its interim stay on the State Government’s notification that prohibited gatherings of ten or more persons for peaceful civic, social, and cultural activities, and clarified that the protection arising from the stay was not limited to the petitioners but extended to all citizens across Karnataka, as the Government Order itself was prima facie unconstitutional and violative of fundamental rights. The Court began by recalling the reasons stated in its earlier order dated October 28, wherein it had held that the Government Order directly curtailed freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and the freedom of peaceful assembly under Article 19(1)(b), rights which can be restricted only by a law made by the legislature and not by executive action. The Court emphasised the constitutional mandate under Article 13(2), which prohibits the State from making any law—or implementing any executive fiat—that abridges fundamental rights. Executive orders, notifications, circulars, or directions cannot override constitutional freedoms unless supported by valid statutory authority. The Court observed that the Government Order had been issued without legislative backing, without demonstrating any immediate risk to public order, and without adhering to the test of reasonableness laid out under Article 19(2) and 19(3). Since the Order was prima facie unconstitutional, allowing it to continue in effect against non-petitioners would amount to sanctioning an unconstitutional restriction on the public at large, even after the Court had found significant defects in its legality. Justice Nagaprasanna reasoned that fundamental rights are universal and cannot be suspended for some citizens while remaining protected for others merely because only a small group approached the Court. If an executive order violates the Constitution on its face, its illegality cannot be geographically or personally compartmentalised. The Judge rejected the State’s contention that the interim stay must benefit only the petitioners, observing that such an approach would allow the State to continue enforcing an unconstitutional order selectively, thereby undermining the integrity of constitutional adjudication. The Court held that once it has found a prima facie case of constitutional infringement, the order is rendered unjustifiable against any citizen, not merely the litigants before the bench. The Court also referred to the Division Bench’s order dated November 6, which dismissed the State’s appeal and upheld the interim order, noting that interfering at this stage would amount to usurping the jurisdiction of the Single Judge, who is yet to conduct a full hearing. The Division Bench had emphasised that issues such as whether the Order violated Article 19, whether executive action can curtail democratic freedoms, or whether the measure was arbitrary or unreasonable, were all questions to be decided after objections were filed and arguments concluded; therefore, the interim stay was appropriately placed and should not be disturbed. Justice Nagaprasanna reiterated that the Division Bench’s affirmation of the interim order strengthened the legal foundation for extending its application statewide. The Court noted that the State had ample opportunity to challenge the interim order and that the appellate court had already declined to intervene. Turning to procedural aspects, the Court acknowledged the Advocate General’s request for additional time to file objections and granted four weeks, posting the matter for final hearing on December 15. However, the Court explicitly clarified that the interim stay would continue uninterrupted until the next date of hearing. Justice Nagaprasanna highlighted that the issues at stake are of significant constitutional importance, as they involve core democratic freedoms, including the ability of citizens to assemble peacefully for social, civic, and cultural purposes. The Court remarked that democratic spaces cannot be shrunk by executive orders in a manner inconsistent with constitutional norms, and that any restriction on civil liberties must emerge from legislation that passes the tests of legality, proportionality, necessity, and reasonableness. The impugned Government Order, which declared peaceful gatherings as “unlawful,” was neither supported by statutory authority nor by cogent reasoning. The Court expressed concern that such an order, if allowed to operate even temporarily, could lead to arbitrary arrests, police excesses, and a chilling effect on constitutionally protected activities. The Court further observed that equating peaceful assemblies with unlawful assemblies contradicts both constitutional text and democratic ethos, and that the Government Order did not differentiate between harmful and harmless gatherings, thereby criminalizing everyday activities—from cultural programs to civic awareness campaigns—without any rational basis. The Court concluded that the interim stay must necessarily apply universally as the power to restrict Article 19 rights lies exclusively with the legislature through law, not through executive instructions. Thus, until the Court determines the matter finally, the Government Order remains inoperative across Karnataka, preserving citizens’ rights to peaceful assembly without fear of prosecution or harassment.