M/S Bharathi Education Society Trust v. State of Karnataka

e -e1e-eeeee e e NC:(2026:KHC:30719( WP(No.(18384(of(2026( ( , ,,HC-KAR( e ( ( e A e INATHEAHIGHACOURTAOFAKARNATAKAAATABENGALURUA e NDDATEDATHISATHEA22 ADAYAOFAJUNE,A2026A e e BEFOREA e THEAHON'BLEAMR.AJUSTICEABAMASHYAMAPRASADA e WRITAPETITIONANO.A18384AOFA2026A(LB-RES)A e BETWEEN:AAe A e - M/S-BHARATHI-EDUCATION-SOCIETY-TRUST-e BHARATHI-NAGAR-(KM-DODDI)- MANDYA-DISTRICT-571422-e REPRESENTED-BY-ITS-SECRETARY.- e …PETITIONER-e (BY-SRI.K.B.-MOUNESH.,-ADVOCATE)- e A AND:A e A e 1.- STATE-OF-KARNATAKA-REP-BY-THE-SECRETARY-e Digitally RURAL-DEVELOPMENT-AND--- signed by PANCHAYAT-RAJ-DEPT.- VANAMALA e KALIDASA-MARGA,-GANDHI-NAGAR-N BENGALURU-560-009.- Location: -HIGH

2.- PANCHAYAT-DEVELOPMENT-OFFICER-COURT OF KARNATAKA GRAMA-PANCHAYAT,-BHARATHINAGARA-MADDUR-TALUK-MANDYA-DISTRICT-571422.- …RESPONDENTS- (BY-SRI.BOPPANNA-BELLIAPPA.,-AGA-FOR-R1)- - THIS-W.P.- IS-FILED-UNDER-ARTICLES-226-AND-227-OF-THE-CONSTITUION-OF-INDIA-PRAYING-TO-e

QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02.06.2026 VIDE NO. BHARATHI NAGAR GRAMA PANCHAYAT//2026-27 ISSUED BY THE R-2 PRODUCED AS ANNX-E; DIRECTIONS IN THE MANDAMUS TO THE R-2 TO CONSIDER THE REPLY OF THE PETITIONER SOCIETY DATED 10.06.2026 PRODUCED AS ANNX-F AND FURTHER ACT UPON THE SAME.

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 petitioner is a Society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 [for short, 'the Act'] and it has established multiple educational institutions in Maddur Taluk, Mandya District. The petitioner has also commenced a Law Degree Course. The petitioner's grievance is with the second respondent's Communication dated

02.06.2026 [Annexure-E]. The second respondent, vide this impugned Communication, has called upon the petitioner to remove buntings which are put up with the image of a person lest action be taken to remove those buntings. This Communication also reads that

the petitioner is permitted to put up such buntings but not with the image of a person, and that though the petitioner has been served with notice for removal of the buntings, the petitioner has failed to remove such buntings.

¶2Sri K. B. Monesh Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is heard in the light of the petitioner's possible response to such notice. The petitioner has referred to the permission accorded by the Bar Council of India for commencement of a law degree course from the academic year 2026-27 asserting that the buntings put up are in accordance with the permission covered under an agreement between the petitioner and second respondent dated

29.08.2023 and that if the petitioner is informed about the parts of the buntings which are offensive, those would be removed.

¶3The photographs of the buntings are produced in the Annexure -C series, and it is seen

that these buntings have the image of a person in what could be the attire prescribed for Advocates. The Bar Council of India Rules would be against any advertisement of an individual, and when this is put to Sri K.B. Monesh Kumar, the learned counsel submits that this Court may grant some time to the petitioner to replace the buntings with the image of a person [even a student] so that the petitioner's right is not jeopardized when the petitioner is willing to ensure that there is no possible violation of the relevant Rules.

¶4Sri Bopanna Belliappa, the learned Additional Government Advocate, who is called upon to accept notice for the first respondent, is heard in the light of the circumstances. The second respondent must be called upon to defer the proposed action for a reasonable time within which the petitioner will have to replace all images of any person from its buntings and ensure that the

buntings relate to the Law Degree Course and the details of the Institution without emphasis on person/ persons. If the petitioner replaces the image of a person in the attire which is prescribed for an Advocate in the buntings in due deference of the Bar Council of India Rules against advertisement for individuals and ensures that the buntings are about the Law Degree Course/details of the Institution, the second respondent cannot be precipitous in bringing about a termination of the petitioner's right. Therefore, this Court must intervene on terms. Hence, the following:

ORDER

The petition stands disposed of on the following terms.

[a] The second respondent is directed to defer action under the impugned Communication dated 02.06.2026 for a period eight [8] weeks from today.

[b] The petitioner is reserved with liberty to replace the buntings with the buntings that have details of the Law Degree Course and Institution and file an affidavit in this regard with the second respondent.

[c] The second respondent, who shall defer action as aforesaid for the next eight [8] weeks, shall consider the issue once again in the light of such replacement without hindering the Bar Council's permission/ recognition in favour of the petitioner's institution or the agreement concluded with the petitioner.

Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

SA Ct:sr