Government orders cannot curtail fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, particularly regarding public gatherings without appropriate legislative backing.

JUDGMENT :

S.G.PANDIT, J.

The above appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 by the State of Karnataka, represented by Secretary as well as Chief Secretary to Government, Home Department and other State authorities, is directed against an ex parte interim order dated 28.10.2025 passed in W.P. No.107929/2025 whereby learned Single Judge stayed the operation of the impugned Government Order dated 18.10.2025 (Annexure-A to the writ petition).

2. The parties would be referred to as they stood before the learned Single Judge for the sake of convenience. The appellants herein were the respondents and respondents No.1 to 4 herein were the petitioners before the learned Single Judge.

3. The petitioners approached the learned Single Judge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the Government Order dated 18.10.2025 (Annexure-A) and also for a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents, their officers and subordinates from enforcing, implementing or acting upon the said Government Order. In the writ petition, petitioners also prayed for an interim order to stay enforcement of the impugned Government Order dated 18.10.2025.

4. Under Annexure-A - Government Order dated 18.10.2025, the “Government property”, “Competent authority”, “Organization”, and “Procession or Rally” are defined. “Procession or Rally” means congregation of more than 10 people called by any name, who are accompanied by music or otherwise, any other activity having a common object to carry on a common movement or route march passing through a Government property except marriage and funeral gatherings and movements. Further, the Government Order would require obtaining prior written permission from the competent authorities for such congregation of 10 or more people. It also states that the unauthorized gathering shall be treated as unlawful assembly under the Bharatiya Nyaya Samhita (BNS), 2023 and jurisdictional police officers shall take steps to prevent the occurrence of non-cognizable offence and, in the event of any occurrence of offence, then the jurisdictional police shall register a case either upon information of other person or suo motu under the provisions of BNS, 2023.

5. The learned Single Judge, on 28.10.2025, when the writ petition was listed for ‘Preliminary Hearing’, upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, directed the learned Additional Government Advocate to accept notice for respondents No.1 to 7 and passed the interim order staying the impugned Government Order dated 18.10.2025. While passing the interim order of stay, the learned Single Judge observed that the impugned Government Order runs contrary to Article 13(2) of the Constitution of India, and further it is observed that it also takes away the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) and (b). The learned Single Judge has also observed that when there are provisions to safeguard the situation or the situation like stated in the Government Order or when the field is occupied by the Karnataka Police Act, by way of an administrative order, the Government could not have curtailed the fundamental rights. Questioning the said ex parte interim order, the State authorities are before this Court in this appeal.

6. Heard learned Advocate General, Sri. Shashikiran Shetty, along with learned Additional Advocate Generals Sri. Kiran Ron and Sri. Gangadhar J.M., appearing for the appellants, and the learned Senior Counsel, Sri. Ashok Haranahalli along with learned counsel Sri. Mallikarjunswamy B.Hiremath, appearing for caveato