Court Cases & Legal News.

Upholding Tradition: High Court Rules State Must Secure Fairs Instead of Banning Them

In a significant observation regarding the governance of public religious festivals, the High Court of Karnataka has ruled that the administration cannot justify the cancellation of traditional fairs merely because a small group of individuals might attempt to disrupt the peace. Addressing a petition filed by the Veeramarannaswamy Devarajeernoddara Kattada Seva Samithi , Justice B M Shyam Prasad emphasized that authorities are duty-bound to maintain order rather than surrender to the influence of those operating outside the rule of law.

The Backdrop: A Festival Under Threat

The petitioners, representing the Veeramarannaswamy Devarajeernoddara Kattada Seva Samithi , sought judicial intervention after facing hurdles in obtaining administrative approval for the Sri Veeramarannaswamy Devara Kallu Hunime Jathre Mahotsava , scheduled from January 28, 2026, to February 3, 2026.

The jurisdictional police and local tahsildar had expressed concerns over granting permission, citing a history of discord. They highlighted previous incidents, including an alleged attempt on life during the previous year’s festivities and rumors involving the poisoning of offerings in 2020. Furthermore, the authorities noted that a rival group had refused to participate in peace meetings, leading to fear of potential property damage and law-and-order issues.

The Court’s Reasoning: Law Enforcement vs. Capitulation

While acknowledging the difficulties faced by the administration, Justice B M Shyam Prasad made a clear distinction between the state's obligation to manage troublemakers and the right of the public to participate in traditional events.

The court noted that the reluctance to permit the event stemmed from the behavior of a few individuals intent on undermining the law. "The authorities cannot give into the conduct of such persons," the judge observed, firmly placing the burden on the police to implement preventive measures rather than stopping the fair itself.

The Court directed the jurisdictional tahsildar and the police inspector to facilitate a meeting with the organizers to identify specific measures—such as limiting high-risk activities like evening processions—to ensure the fair proceeds safely.

Key Observations

The judgment offers a firm directive on how the state should approach civil unrest:

• "The reluctance on the administration to permit the Fair appears to be the conduct of a few who want to be outside the rule of law and that the authorities cannot give into the conduct of such persons."
• "The jurisdictional Police Inspector must take every preventive measure, including arrests that may be permissible in law and seeking deployment of additional forces to ensure that the Fair is conducted with no untoward incident."
• "This Court must opine that... the authorities cannot give into the conduct of such persons, but then the petitioners must also ensure that they do not insist upon performing every act that is traditionally part of the Fair if it is to be held."

Implications for Future Governance

The High Court’s order serves as a reminder that the state’s primary role in hosting large-scale events is to manage and mitigate safety risks through effective policing and proactive communication, not through blanket prohibitions. By ordering the administration to secure the fair, the court has underlined that the right of citizens to hold their traditional functions cannot be abridged simply because of the threat posed by those who refuse to follow the law.

The petitioners have been directed to cooperate with the administration in identifying safer alternatives for potentially sensitive aspects of the event, ensuring that the spirit of the festival is upheld without compromising public safety.