The Karnataka HC Hoardings Dispute arose after the Hindu Jagarana Vedike put up hoardings for an August 14 torchlight procession. The Karnataka High Court questioned the move because authorities had already denied permission for the event.
Court Questions Hoardings
Justice Suraj Govindaraj questioned Senior Advocate M Aruna Shyam, who appeared for the petitioner.
The judge asked why the petitioner had advertised the procession despite the police rejecting permission.
The Court noted that the matter remained pending before it. The petitioner had approached the Court seeking permission to conduct the procession.
Police Had Rejected Permission
The dispute concerns Hindu Jagrana Vedike & another v. The Commissioner of Police & another.
The police had refused permission for the proposed Akhanda Bharatha Sankalpa Dina torchlight procession.
Despite this decision, the organisation displayed hoardings announcing the August 14 event.
The Court questioned the basis for taking such a step before receiving permission.
High Court Stresses Rule of Law
Justice Govindaraj questioned the petitioner’s compliance with the rule of law.
The judge asked how the organisation could proceed with publicity after the State had rejected its request.
The Court also cautioned the petitioner against assuming that it would receive permission.
Court Warns Against Presuming Permission
Justice Govindaraj further questioned whether the petitioner had taken the Court’s decision for granted.
The judge noted that the petitioner had approached the Court precisely to seek permission. Yet, it had already advertised the procession.
The Court viewed this as presumptuous conduct.
Court Questions Pre-Emption of Decision
The Bench also questioned the decision to put up hoardings before the Court decided the plea.
The Court made it clear that a pending request does not amount to permission.
The Karnataka HC Hoardings Dispute therefore centres on whether the petitioner could publicise the procession before receiving judicial or administrative approval.
The Court’s observations emphasise that parties must respect the legal process while seeking relief from the judiciary.
