BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday quashed the order issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Dharwad prohibiting Kaneri Math Adhrushya Kadeshwara Swamiji of Maharashtra from entering the district between 5 November 2025 and 3 January 2026.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna delivered the ruling while allowing the petition filed by the Swamiji, the pontiff of Kaneri Math in Kolhapur district, challenging the prohibitory order dated 4 November 2025. The Deputy Commissioner had invoked Section 163(4) of the BNSS over an allegedly objectionable statement, acting on a representation submitted by the Jagathika Lingayat Mahasabha seeking to bar the petitioner from participating in a week-long programme at a Math.
The court held that the challenged order was devoid of reasons and based purely on conjecture, imposing a restraint of “manifestly excessive duration.” As such, it failed the tests of constitutionality and legality laid down by the Supreme Court, as well as by division benches and coordinate benches of the High Court. The court also recorded the undertaking by the petitioner’s counsel that the Swamiji would conduct himself with restraint and would not transgress the bounds of the liberty restored.
Examining the impugned order “on the touchstone of principles delineated by the apex court and various High Courts,” the court found it to be “wholly indefensible and unsustainable.” It noted the absence of any emergent situation that could justify a restraint extending for two months. “The mere fact that the statute permits a maximum duration of two months does not bestow upon the authority a licence to exercise such power in a cursory and cavalier manner,” the court observed.
The court further noted that the order lacked any record of subjective satisfaction on the part of the respondent that an ex parte order was necessary. There was likewise no indication of any prevailing emergency related to the petitioner that could justify such a disproportionate restriction. The Supreme Court has made it clear that an order previously examined by a coordinate bench cannot by itself form the sole basis for fresh restrictive action. However, in this instance, the prior order was used as the exclusive foundation, with the representation merely reiterating it. This, the court said, demonstrated that no other material existed against the petitioner.