Karnataka High Court: In series of writ petition challenging the Karnataka Government ‘s decision to invite acclaimed author Banu Mushtaq as the Chief Guest for the Dasara festival inauguration at the Chamundeshwari Temple, a Division Bench of Vibhu Bakhru, CJ.* and C.M. Joshi, J., dismissed the petitions holding that the Dasara festivities are a State-sponsored function and inviting a person from another religion does not violate any constitutional rights under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. The Court further held that participation of a person practicing a particular faith or religion, in celebrations of festivals of other religion does not offend the rights available under Constitution.
Background
The petitioners filed writ petitions challenging the decision of the Karnataka Government to invite the 4th respondent, Banu Mushtaq, an author and Booker Prize winner, to be the Chief Guest to inaugurate the Dasara festivities atop Chamundeshwari Hills on 22-09-2025.
One of the petitioners submitted that it was not appropriate to invite the 4th respondent as the inaugural function involved active participation in Hindu religious rituals, including the lighting of a sacred lamp (Deepa Prajwalam) and offering prayers and flowers to the deity. It was further contended that the 4th respondent had made statements that were anti-Hindu and anti-Karnataka and that the invitation offended Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. Since the 4th respondent was not of the Hindu faith, she was not entitled to inaugurate the festivities which could only be performed by a Hindu.
Analysis and Decision
The Court expressed that it unable to accept that the said invitation offends Articles 25 or 26 of the Constitution. The Court noted that the festivities are organized by the State every year and an accomplished person is called for the inaugural ceremony, with past invitees including scientists, educationists, authors, and freedom fighters. The decision to invite the 4th respondent was taken by a committee of elected representatives and government officials.
The Court perused Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. Article 25 guarantees the right to freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion. The Court observed that the petitioners’ right to practice and propagate their religion was not curtailed in any manner by extending the invitation to the 4th respondent. Article 26 guarantees every religious denomination the right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion, among other things. The Court observed that no right of any religious denomination was being curtailed or restricted and no person managing a religious denomination had claimed a violation of their right to maintain their religious institutions.
The Court observed that the reliance on Commr., Hindu Religious Endowments v. Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, (1954) 1 SCC 412, and Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam v. State of T.N., (2016) 2 SCC 725 , was misplaced as those cases dealt with the rights of religious denominations and their heads, which was not the case here. The petitioner did not represent any denomination or any Section, who’s right to establish or maintain its institution was curtailed. Similarly, the Court distinguished the case of Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore, 1957 SCC OnLine SC 138.
The Court held that,
“we are unable to accept that any legal or constitutional right of the petitioners is violated by extending the invitation to the 4th respondent to inaugurate the State sponsored Dasara festivities. Participation of a person practicing a particular faith or religion, in celebrations of festivals of other religion does not offend the rights available under Constitution of India. In our view, the extension of invitation to 4th respondent does not fall foul of any of the values enshrined in the Constitution of India.”
The Court dismissed the petitions.
[H.S. Gaurav v. State of Karnataka, W.P. No. 27824/2025, decided on 15-09-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioners: Rajavardhana Reddy B., S. Sudharsan, Anand N.S. Advocates
For the Respondents: Shashikiran Shetty, Advocate General a/w Prathima Honnapura, AAG a/w Smt. Niloufer Akbar, AGA
Buy Constitution of India HERE
