[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Shri Naveen R vs State Of Karnataka on 11 February, 2026
Author: B M Shyam Prasad
Bench: B M Shyam Prasad
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:8173
WP No. 4513 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 4513 OF 2026 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI NAVEEN R
S/O LATE RAMACHANDRA SHENOY
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO 768, 3RD C MAIN,
2ND CROSS, NEAR GOVT. SCHOOL,
MUNESHWARA LAYOUT LAGGERE,
BENGALURU NORTH,
PEENYA SMALL INDUSTRIES,
BENGALURU - 560058.
Digitally 2. CENTRE FOR INDIAN TRADE UNIONS (CITU)
signed by KARNATAKA STATE COMMITTEE
VANAMALA
N (A RECOGNIZED CENTRAL TRADE UNION)
Location: REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL
HIGH
COURT OF SECRETARY SURI BHAVANA,
KARNATAKA NO. 40/5, 2ND B MAIN, 16TH CROSS,
SAMPANGI RAMNAGARA,
BENGALURU - 560027.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. L MURALIDHAR PESHWA.,ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:8173
WP No. 4513 of 2026
HC-KAR
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF HOME
(REPRESENTED BY
ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY)
ROOM NO. 222, II FLOOR,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560001.
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
MALLESWARAM SUB DIVISION
2ND MAIN ROAD, NAGAPURA,
WEST OF CHORD ROAD, STAGE 2,
MAHALAKSHMIPURAM,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA, 560086.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.SARITHA KULKARNI., AGA)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 04-02-2026, AT ANNEXURE - D, BEARING NO.
ACP 1/S.B/DHVA.VA/08/2026 AS THE SAID ORDER
SUFFERS FROM ERRORS APPARENT ON THE FACE OF
THE RECORD, AND IS ILLEGAL, UNCONSTITUTIONAL,
ARBITRARY, MANIFESTLY ERRONEOUS AND AGAINST
THE WELL-ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLES OF LAW;
2. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR APPROPRIATE
DIRECTION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 TO
DULY CONSIDER THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY
THE AT PETITIONERS AT ANNEXURE C TO CONDUCT
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:8173
WP No. 4513 of 2026
HC-KAR
THE MOBILE AWARENESS CAMPAIGN ABOUT THE 12-
02-2026 ALL INDIA GENERAL STRIKE THROUGH
MOBILE PUBLIC ADDRESS SYSTEMS, SUBJECT TO
SUCH REASONABLE CONDITIONS AS THIS HON'BLE
COURT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
The second petitioner is a Trade Union and the
first petitioner is its President. The petitioners'
grievance is with the second respondent's
Endorsement dated 04.02.2026 [Annexure-D]. The
second respondent has rejected the petitioners'
application to use loudspeakers on two
autorickshaws to create awareness amongst the
residents of Malleshwaram, Bengaluru about the
protest that the second petitioner has organised. The
second respondent has reasoned that the petitioners
cannot be permitted to use autorickshaws with
NC: 2026:KHC:8173
HC-KAR
loudspeakers because his Sub-division has
educational institutions, hospitals, No Honking Zones
and because senior citizens and persons who do not
feel well reside in the area.
2. Sri L Muralidhar Peshwa, the learned
counsel for the petitioners, submits that the decision
to reject the petitioners' application without even
considering whether the conditions could be imposed
is arbitrary, and in support of this canvass, the
learned counsel relies upon the different permissions
granted by the Assistant Commissioners of Police of
other Sub-Divisions. The learned counsel submits
that though the request is for using autorickshaws
on 10.02.2026 and 11.02.2026, this Court may, in
the circumstances, direct the second respondent to
permit the petitioners to have the use of loudspeakers
on the two autorickshaws on conditions that are
reasonable. Smt Saritha Kulkarni, the learned
NC: 2026:KHC:8173
HC-KAR
Additional Government Advocate, is heard in the light
of these circumstances.
3. On perusal of the permissions granted by
the Assistant Commissioners of Police of the other
Sub-divisions, it cannot be gainsaid that the
petitioners have been permitted to carry out similar
campaigns in other Sub-divisions but on the
conditions such as that:
[a] the petitioners must ensure that these
autorickshaws do not obstruct traffic,
[b] the petitioners must bear all the
expenses that could be incurred in
ensuring police protection,
[c] the autorickshaws do not ply around
either educational institutions or
hospitals,
[d] the petitioners must only use box
loudspeakers and not DJs,
NC: 2026:KHC:8173
HC-KAR
[e] the petitioners must ensure that no
defamatory material is put out on the
loudspeaker,
[f] there is compliance with the
regulations on noise pollution, and
[g] the petitioners must ensure that the
autorickshaws do not ply beyond 10
pm.
4. This Court, in the circumstances of the
case, is persuaded to opine that a campaign to create
awareness [a facet of any democratic process] cannot
be restricted unreasonably and that the second
respondent's impugned Endorsement has the colour
of an unreasonableness because he has not
examined the circumstances such as the other
Assistant Commissioners of Police permitting a
similar request and the stipulations that must be. As
such, the following:
NC: 2026:KHC:8173
HC-KAR
ORDER
[a] The petition stands disposed of.
[b] The second respondent is directed to
permit the petitioners to have the
use of two autorickshaws on
12.02.2026 with loudspeakers on
conditions that are referred to
above.
[c] The petitioners are reserved with
liberty to file a certified copy of this
order with the second respondent,
calling upon the second respondent
to issue appropriate orders
forthwith.
SD/-
(B M SHYAM PRASAD)
JUDGE
AN/-
