Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA ROOM NO.320, 3RD FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDA

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS, ORDER OR DIRECTION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NO.3 TO 5, TO PERMIT THE PETITIONER AND ITS MEMBERS TO CONDUCT A PEACEFUL PROTEST AND INDEFINITE HUNGER STRIKE AT FREEDOM PARK, BENGALURU, FROM 21.04.2026 OR ON SUCH OTHER DATE AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT AND ETC.,

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL ORDER

The captioned writ petition is instituted calling in question the legality and correctness of the endorsement issued by respondent No.5, whereby the request of the petitioner– association seeking permission to conduct a peaceful protest and to undertake an indefinite hunger strike at Freedom Park, Bengaluru, from 24.04.2026 or on any other suitable date, has been declined. The petitioner has also sought issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent Nos.3 to 5 to accord necessary permission to hold such protest.

Learned AGA appearing for the State, on instructions, has placed on record a memo enclosing the impugned endorsement issued by the Commissioner of Police as well as a copy of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.5781/2021. Placing reliance on the said materials, it is contended that the application submitted by the petitioner is fundamentally defective and does not conform to the statutory framework governing grant of permission for protests. It is further submitted that in view of the binding regulatory regime now in force, namely, the Licensing and Regulation of Protests, Demonstrations and Protest Marches (Bengaluru City) Order, 2021 (for short, “Rules, 2021”), any application seeking permission to hold a protest is required to strictly adhere to the prescribed procedure, including submission of requisite forms in Form Nos.1 to 4. It is thus contended that the rejection of the petitioner’s application is justified and that the petitioner, if so advised, may either assail the endorsement in appropriate proceedings or submit a fresh application in strict compliance with the Rules, 2021.

This Court has given its anxious consideration to the rival submissions and has perused the material on record. A careful examination of the writ papers would indicate that the petitioner seeks permission not merely for a regulated protest, but for an indefinite hunger strike at a notified public place. Such a prayer, on the face of it, runs contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amit Sahni (Shaheen Bagh) v. Commissioner of Police 2020 (10) SCC 573, wherein it is authoritatively held that while the right to protest is a fundamental right in a democratic polity, the same is subject to reasonable restrictions and cannot extend to indefinite occupation of public spaces causing inconvenience to the general public.

In the light of the aforesaid enunciation of law and having regard to the regulatory framework now brought into force under the Rules, 2021, which mandates strict compliance with procedural requirements including submission of applications in prescribed Forms Nos.1 to 4, this Court is of the considered view that the prayer sought in the present petition cannot be countenanced. The endorsement impugned is thus in consonance with the governing statutory scheme and does not warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

However, it is made clear that the rejection of the present writ petition shall not foreclose the petitioner’s right to seek permission afresh. Liberty deserves to be reserved to the petitioner to submit a fresh application strictly in compliance with the Rules, 2021, in which event the competent authority shall consider the same in accordance with law, bearing in