Restrictions on public speech cannot be based on the whims of the police, said the Karnataka High Court recently while setting aside Belagavi police notices barring two speakers from addressing Hindu Sammelana (gathering) events [Hindu Sammelana Samithi v. Commissioner of Police Belagavi & Ors.].

The Court directed police authorities to reconsider the organiser's permission requests under the Karnataka Police Act, 1963.

Justice Lalitha Kanneganti noted that while police do have the authority to regulate public gatherings to maintain law and order, those powers must be exercised within legal limits.

Referring to the freedoms under Article 19 (Freedom of speech and expression, assemblies) of the Constitution, the Court stated,

“The police cannot arbitrarily stop a person from speaking in a public meeting basing on their whims and fancies. When the State is curtailing the citizens’ fundamental rights, it shall be based on reasoning and based on some material."

The organisers of the gathering, Hindu Sammelana Samithi from Belagavi, had approached the Assistant Commissioner of Police seeking permission to conduct public gatherings on February 6 and February 8, 2026.

They informed the authorities that Harika Manjunath and Mithun Chakravarthy Devidas Shet, also known as Chakravarthy Sulibeli, would address the gatherings.

However, on January 22, police issued notices stopping the two speakers from attending the events. They explained criminal cases had been filed against the speakers and warned their presence could pose a law and order risk

In response, the organisers submitted replies stating that no cases were pending against one speaker and that any pending proceedings had been stayed by the High Court in respect of the other speaker.

The Court referred to sections of the Karnataka Police Act that allow authorities to regulate loudspeakers, public meetings and gatherings to prevent disorder. However, the judge made it clear that these powers must be used in line with constitutional freedoms and the legal limits on restricting speech.

Addressing the police justification directly, the Court made it clear that the mere registration of criminal cases could not automatically justify prohibiting participation in public events.

“Just because certain cases are registered against the speakers, that itself cannot be a reason for the police to pass such an order prohibiting them from participating/delivering speech in the Sammelan," the Court said.

The Court also cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, which states, restrictions on speech must be proportionate and backed by clear justification from the State.

The Court further noted the organiser’s argument that the speakers had taken part in similar events in the past without any law and order problems.

The High Court accordingly quashed the police notices and directed authorities to reconsider the organiser's requests in line with the law.

Senior Advocate Aruna Shyam and advocate Suraj S Mutnal represented the Hindu Sammelana Samithi.

Additional Advocate General Gangadhar JM represented the Police.

[Read Order]