The Karnataka High Court dismissed petitions challenging the invitation of a non-Hindu dignitary to inaugurate the Dasara festivities in Karnataka, holding that the State’s decision does not violate Article 25 or Article 26 of the Constitution. The matter concerned whether inviting a Muslim author and Booker Prize winner to participate in rituals atop the Chamundeshwari Hills infringed on religious freedoms. The court observed that participation of a person from a different faith in state-sponsored celebrations does not offend constitutional rights and that the Dasara festivities are organized as a public event rather than a purely religious ceremony.
Brief Facts:
The petitioners filed writ petitions challenging the Government of Karnataka’s decision to invite respondent No.4, a Muslim author and social activist, as the Chief Guest for the inauguration of the Dasara festivities. The petitioners contended that the inaugural ceremony involved lighting the ceremonial lamp, offering flowers and fruits to Goddess Chamundeshwari, and participating in Vedic prayers, all of which are Hindu rituals. They argued that inviting a person not of the Hindu faith to perform these rituals offended religious sentiments and violated Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
Contentions of the Petitioners:
The petitioners, through their counsel, argued that respondent No.4’s participation in Hindu rituals hurt public sentiments due to her past statements alleged to be anti-Hindu and anti-Kannada. They submitted that such religious acts could only be performed by a Hindu and relied on precedents, including Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar and Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam v. Government of Tamil Nadu, asserting that agamic traditions were protected under Articles 25 and 26.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The State, represented by the Advocate General, countered that respondent No.4 is an accomplished author, lawyer, and social activist. The inauguration is a State-sponsored public event, not a religious function of the temple. The State highlighted that prior inaugurations had included persons of different faiths, and the Dasara festivities are organized by a committee comprising elected representatives and government officials. It further relied on a 2016 circular mandating temples to provide free entry without distinction of caste, community, religion, or gender.
Observations of the Court:
The Court observed that none of the guarantees under Articles 25 (freedom of religion) and 26 (freedom to manage religious affairs) were offended. Article 25 protects the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion, but it does not prohibit participation in state-sponsored functions. Article 26 ensures the rights of religious denominations or sections to manage religious institutions, which were not affected in this case.
The court examined the cited precedents and found them inapplicable. In Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar, the matter concerned a Mathadhipati managing Mutt property, unlike the present case. Similarly, Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal pertained to appointments of Archakas based on agamic traditions, which did not apply here. The Court further noted that the Dasara festivities have historically included distinguished guests from diverse backgrounds and that the function is a public event organized by the State, not a temple-specific religious ceremony.
The Court concluded that inviting a person from a different faith does not infringe upon the constitutional rights of the petitioners or the Hindu community and that no legal or constitutional right was violated by respondent No.4’s participation.
The decision of the Court:
The High Court dismissed all the petitions, holding that the invitation to respondent No.4 to inaugurate the Dasara festivities was lawful and did not contravene Article 25 or Article 26 of the Constitution. The court emphasized that participation of a person from another religion in state-sponsored celebrations does not offend constitutional values, and the petitions were accordingly unmerited.
Case Title: Sri H.S. Gaurav vs. The State of Karnataka and Ors.
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 27824 of 2025
Coram: Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru, Justice C M Joshi
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Sri Rajavardhana Reddy B
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Prathima Honnapura, Niloufer Akbar
Picture Source :
