PIL questions Karnataka law enacted to protect illegal religious structures in public places

High Court of Karnataka was hearing a petition filed by D. Keshavamurthy, a Bengaluru-based social worker.
| Photo Credit: File photo

Asking how the State Government can reconcile two laws, one against superstitious beliefs and the other to protect illegal religious structures in public places, the High Court of Karnataka granted three weeks’ time to the government to file its response to a PIL petition, which has questioned the constitutional validity of the Karnataka Religious Structure (Protection) Act, 2021.

On January 29, a division bench comprising Chief Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice M.I. Arun made oral observations while adjourning further hearing on the petition filed by D. Keshavamurthy, a Bengaluru-based social worker. The bench granted three more weeks while noticing that the government has not yet filed its response even though the PIL was filed way back in 2023.

To protect religious structures

The 2021 Act was enacted to protect religious structures, including those built illegally on public property and existing as on the date of commencement of this Act.

The petitioner has alleged that the 2021 Act was enacted to negate the effect of the directions of the apex court, which in 2009 had directed all the States not to allow any illegal religious structure on public property with effect from September 29, 2009, and demolish such structures, if put up.

The bench noted that the issue involved in the PIL is of seminal importance and has far-reaching dimensions in the operation of constitutional law and the power of the legislature to legislate on the orders of the apex court that are the law of the land to be invariably obeyed by all, including legislative bodies.

Bull race plea

Meanwhile, the bench dismissed a PIL petition seeking a direction to the Kolar deputy commissioner to consider a representation seeking permission for conducting bull and bullock cart race in Dullapalli village of Mulbagal taluk by adhering to the relevant laws and necessary safeguards. The bench said it is entirely up to the authorities concerned to consider the representation, and the court cannot intervene in any manner under the jurisdiction of the PIL.