Karnataka High Court
Sri. Adrushya Kadeshwara Swamiji vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6137
WP No. 203149 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.203149 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. ADRUSHYA KADESHWARA SWAMIJI
GURU MUPPINA KADESHWARA SWAMJI,
AGE: 63 YEARS, KANERI MATHA, KOLHAPUR
MAHARASHTRA-4116234.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SACHIN MADHUKAR MAHAJAN, AND
SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR., ADVOCATES)
AND:
Digitally signed
by NIJAMUDDIN
JAMKHANDI 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Location: HIGH THROUGH HOME DEPARTMENT
COURT OF REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
KARNATAKA
VIDHAN SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
VIJAYAPUR DISTRICT
VIJAYAPUR-586101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHASHIKIRANA, AG, A/W
SMT. ARCHAN P. TIWARI, AAG A/W
SRI. JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN., HCGP)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6137
WP No. 203149 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 528 OF
THE CODE OF BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA
PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 15.10.2025, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 THE
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, VIJAYAPUR, IN FILE BEARING
NO.RB/MAG/VIVA/10/2025-26, VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 16.10.2025 COMING ON FOR
'PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER' THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
CAV ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
In the captioned petition, the petitioner, who is the
Matadipati of Siddhagiri Math, Kaneri, Taluk Karvir, District
Kolhapur, has called in question the impugned order dated
15.10.2025 bearing No. RB/MAG/VIVA/10/2025-26,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6137
WP No. 203149 of 2025
HC-KAR
passed by the second respondent-Deputy Commissioner,
Vijayapura District, whereby the petitioner has been
restrained from entering the territorial limits of Vijayapura
District for the period from 16.10.2025 to 14.12.2025, as
per Annexure-A.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, submits that
the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal, and actuated by
extraneous and political considerations. It is contended
that there are no materials whatsoever to invoke sub-
section (2) of Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner, according to
learned counsel, merely intends to participate in the Punya
Tithi of Samarth Sadguru Shri Siddharameshwara
Maharajaru at Basavana Bagewadi, District Vijayapura,
scheduled on 16th and 17th October, 2025. It is further
urged that the petitioner had already commenced his
journey from Kolhapur to Vijayapura to attend the said
religious gathering, and that the issuance of the
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6137
WP No. 203149 of 2025
HC-KAR
prohibitory order at the eleventh hour amounts to a direct
infringement of his fundamental rights guaranteed under
Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India. In support of
his submissions, reliance is placed on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of
India & Others, (2020) 3 SCC 637, to contend that
restrictions on movement must satisfy the tests of
necessity and proportionality.
3. Per contra, the learned Advocate General,
relying upon the material placed on record and the inputs
furnished in the police report, submits that the petitioner's
proposed visit is likely to disturb public order and may lead
to breach of peace. He points out that there are credible
intelligence inputs indicating widespread protests already
being organized by devotees in response to the
petitioner's recent use of abusive and intemperate
language against another pontiff. Placing reliance on the
principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
State of Karnataka & Another v. Dr. Praveen Bhai
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6137
WP No. 203149 of 2025
HC-KAR
Thogadia, (2004) 4 SCC 684, he contends that when
the administration is satisfied, on the basis of objective
material, that a person's presence is likely to endanger
public tranquility, it is well within its power to issue a
preventive order under Section 163 of the BNSS, 2023. It
is thus submitted that the impugned order is neither
arbitrary nor excessive but a legitimate preventive
measure to preserve public peace.
4. This Court has carefully considered the rival
submissions advanced by both learned counsel and has
perused the records, including the impugned order and the
judgments relied upon by the parties.
5. The short question that arises for consideration
in this petition is--
"Whether the prohibitory order dated 15.10.2025,
restraining the petitioner from entering Vijayapura
District, warrants interference in exercise of the
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6137
WP No. 203149 of 2025
HC-KAR
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226
of the Constitution of India?"
6. Before this delves into the matter, it would be
apposite to extract the statement made by petitioner, the
same is extracted as under;
"ಉ ೆ ೕಖ (1) ರನ ಯ ೕ ಅ ೕ ಕರು, ಜಯಪ ರ ಇವರು,
"ಇ ೕ ೆ ೆ ಮ ಾ!ಾಷ#ದ ಜತ &ಾಲೂ)ನ *ೕಳ,ರು ಾ-ಮದ
ಸ/ಾರಂಭದ ಕ2ೇ3 ಮಠದ ಅದೃಶ7 8ಾಡ:;ೆ<ೕಶ ರ =ಾ >ೕ?ಯವರು.
*ಗುAಾ7ಗ ೋಗBಾ7C- ಗುAಾ7ಗ ೋಗBಾ7C- ಅಂ&ಾ ಪ- ಾರ ನAೆ;ೈ ,
ಂಗಳ EೕF ಂಗಳ Gಂದ /ಾCದ-HಾI, ಮುಖ7ಮಂ -ಗಳ ಕೃHಾ ೕಷಕ
ಂ ಾಯತ ಮJಾ ೕಪ ಗಳ ಒಕೂLಟ ಕ ಾ ದ3ಂದ ಕೂC8ೊಂಡತಹ
ಬಸವ ಸಂಸP ಅQRಾನ ಎನುTವ 2ಾಟಕವನT &ೆ ೆದು8ೊಂಡು ಇC
ಕ2ಾUಟಕ !ಾಜ7ದ ತುಂಬ ರು ಾC ;ೇವರು ಗುCRಾಗ ಇಲ , ಗುAಾ7ಗ
ೋಗBಾ7C-, ಮ2ಾ7Vನ ;ೇವ-ಗಳನುT ತ ೊಂಡು ೊWಾXಗ ಾ)-,
ೋYೆZ;ಾಗ ೋV- ;ಾರು ಕುC3, ಅ!ಾ/ಾV3, /ಾಂ=ಾ ನT3,
ಅವರನT ಮುಂ;ೆ ಕುದ-=ೊLಂಡ ಆ ಸುWೆ ಮಕL\ ೆ ಬುE< 2ಾ2ೇ ೇಳBೇಕು.
GCದು ]^_ ೇ ೊCBೇಕ C«æU,É ]` ]mÉè ೊCದು-ನು ಕC]2ೇ"
ಅನುTವಂತಹ ೇ\8ೆಯನುT 8ೊ^_ದು<. ಆ G2ೆT ೆಯ ಗದಗ, ಜಯಪ ರ,
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6137
WP No. 203149 of 2025
HC-KAR
*ೕದರ, :ಂಧನೂರು, ಕೂಡಲಸಂಗಮ, ;ಾವಣ ೇ!ೆ, ಮು;ೆ<ೕ* ಾಳ,
ಬಸವಕ ಾ7ಣ, ೊಸದುಗU, Bೆಳ ಾ , dಟಗುಪI ಾಗೂ !ಾಜ7ದ ಧ
eಾಗಗಳ =ಾವUಜfಕರು ಮತು ಮJಾ ೕಶರು ಪ- ಕೃ ಗಳನುT ದG:.
ತಮg ಆ8ೊ-ೕಶ ಾಗೂ ಪ- ಭಟ2ೆ /ಾC ಆ8ೊ-ೕಶ ವ7ಕ ಪC:, ಮನ
ಪತ-ಗಳನುT ಸ :ರು&ಾ !ೆ"
(Emphasis supplied by me)
7. It is no doubt unfortunate that differences have
arisen between two revered spiritual leaders, and the
petitioner, being a pontiff commanding considerable public
following, is expected to exhibit composure, tolerance, and
restraint even in the face of provocation. However, the
material placed before this Court reveals that the
petitioner's reaction to the remarks made by another
pontiff was not confined to a dignified rebuttal, but
degenerated into use of threatening and abusive language,
including statements suggestive of physical assault. Such
conduct, by any measure, is wholly inconsistent with the
moral and spiritual discipline expected of a religious head
and erodes the dignity attached to his office. A person who
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6137
WP No. 203149 of 2025
HC-KAR
chooses to respond in such an intemperate and
provocative manner cannot, merely by virtue of his
ecclesiastical position, claim immunity from the ordinary
application of law or seek indulgence under the guise of
religious freedom.
8. While this Court is informed about the
petitioner's revered stature, it cannot overlook the fact
that his utterances have already resulted in public protests
and created palpable tension among devotees. In such
circumstances, the preventive measures adopted by the
District Administration, based on credible intelligence
inputs, cannot be said to be arbitrary or disproportionate.
The right to movement under Article 19(1)(d) carries with
it the obligation to ensure that its exercise does not
imperil public peace. The petitioner, instead of asserting
his right in defiance of prevailing circumstances, ought to
demonstrate spiritual maturity by voluntarily deferring his
visit in the larger interest of maintaining public order.
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6137
WP No. 203149 of 2025
HC-KAR
9. The scope of the fundamental right guaranteed
under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution, which confers
upon every citizen the right to move freely throughout the
territory of India, is not absolute and is subject to
reasonable restrictions under Article 19(5) in the interests
of the general public. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr.
N.B. Khare v. State of Delhi AIR 1950 SC 211, has
held that freedom of movement or expression cannot be
exercised in a manner that disturbs public order or offends
communal harmony. Similarly, in Himat Lal K. Shah v.
Commissioner of Police AIR 1973 SC 87, it has been
reiterated that while citizens have a right to move freely
and assemble peacefully, the State is equally empowered
to regulate such rights to prevent breach of peace.
10. In the present case, the impugned prohibitory
order has been issued on the basis of credible intelligence
inputs indicating that the petitioner's visit to Basavana
Bagewadi is likely to trigger protests and disturb public
tranquility. The materials on record, including the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6137
WP No. 203149 of 2025
HC-KAR
statements made by the petitioner, reveal the use of
abusive and derogatory language wholly unbecoming of a
person claiming spiritual status. When such conduct is
capable of inflaming religious sentiments and provoking
unrest, the preventive measures adopted by the District
Administration cannot be termed arbitrary or excessive.
The restriction imposed is narrowly tailored to prevent
imminent disorder and does not permanently curtail the
petitioner's right under Article 19(1)(d).
11. It is expected of a person holding the exalted
position of a spiritual head or pontiff to act with restraint,
humility, and a sense of responsibility befitting the faith
and reverence reposed in him by the followers. A saint or
religious leader occupies a place of moral influence and
spiritual guidance in society, and therefore his words and
actions carry far-reaching consequences on the conduct of
devotees. The petitioner, being a pontiff of considerable
following, ought to be conscious that any statement or act
perceived as provocative or derogatory can have a
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6137
WP No. 203149 of 2025
HC-KAR
cascading effect on public peace and order. In the present
case, the record discloses that the petitioner's previous
utterances contained language that was clearly abusive
and unbecoming of a spiritual leader, which has already
led to widespread protests across the State. When such an
atmosphere of tension prevails, prudence demands that
the petitioner should voluntarily defer or avoid his
proposed visit to Basava Bagewadi, keeping in view the
larger interest of maintaining communal harmony and
public tranquility.
12. The right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d) of
the Constitution cannot be claimed in isolation, divorced
from the corresponding duty to ensure that its exercise
does not endanger peace or public order. A spiritual
leader, more than any other citizen, is expected to
exemplify tolerance and self-restraint, and to rise above
personal grievances in order to promote harmony and
mutual respect among communities. Therefore, when the
impugned prohibitory order is based on credible
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6137
WP No. 203149 of 2025
HC-KAR
intelligence inputs and aims to prevent potential unrest,
this Court finds no ground to interfere, as the petitioner,
by refraining from such visit, would in fact be upholding
the true spirit of his calling and setting a noble example
for his followers.
13. In Dr. Praveen Togadia v. State of
Karnataka, (2004) 4 SCC 684, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court upheld a similar prohibitory order restraining entry
into a district, holding that when credible material
indicates the likelihood of breach of peace, preventive
action by the administration constitutes a reasonable
restriction under Article 19(1)(d). The Court observed that
the right to movement must yield to the paramount
interest of maintaining public order and tranquility.
14. In contrast, reliance on Anuradha Bhasin v.
Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637, is misplaced, as that
case dealt with region-wide restrictions affecting the
general public and examined the proportionality of
continuing limitations on movement and communication.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6137
WP No. 203149 of 2025
HC-KAR
The present case, however, involves a narrowly tailored
preventive measure directed against an individual whose
own abusive and provocative utterances have already led
to protests and tension among devotees. The impugned
order, based on concrete intelligence inputs, is thus a
legitimate and proportionate exercise of power under
Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023,
intended solely to prevent imminent disturbance to public
order.
15. The scope of judicial review of an order passed
by an Executive Magistrate under Section 163 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is necessarily
limited. Such orders are preventive and administrative in
nature, issued on the basis of subjective satisfaction
formed from material placed before the authority
regarding an apprehended breach of peace. The Court,
while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution, does not sit in appeal over the satisfaction of
the Executive Magistrate or substitute its own opinion for
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6137
WP No. 203149 of 2025
HC-KAR
that of the competent authority. Interference is warranted
only where the order is shown to be patently without
jurisdiction, vitiated by mala fides, based on no material,
or suffers from manifest arbitrariness. So long as the order
is founded upon relevant and credible inputs, supported by
contemporaneous reports of the law enforcement
agencies, and the satisfaction recorded is not
demonstrably perverse or irrational, the Court would be
slow to interfere. The judicial focus in such review is
confined to examining the decision-making process rather
than the decision itself, thereby maintaining the delicate
balance between individual liberty and the necessity of
preventive action in the interest of public order. Hence,
the restriction falls within the ambit of Article 19(5) and
does not call for interference.
16. On overall consideration, this Court finds that
the impugned prohibitory order is based on relevant
material and is neither arbitrary nor excessive. The order
represents a legitimate preventive measure issued in the
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6137
WP No. 203149 of 2025
HC-KAR
interest of maintaining public order. No ground is made
out to warrant interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
ORDER
i. The writ petition stands dismissed.
ii. The impugned order dated 15.10.2025 passed by the second respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Vijayapura District, is hereby upheld.
iii. It is, however, made clear that the petitioner shall be at liberty to renew his request for entry after the period stipulated in the order expires, subject to the prevailing law and order situation.
iv. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NJ List No.: 3 Sl No.: 1 CT:SI