Police Cannot Meddle in Religious Disputes Without Law and Order Concerns: Karnataka High Court Orders Inquiry Against Inspector for Interference in Mutt Property Dispute

Religious Institutions Have Autonomy; Law Enforcement Must Not Overreach in Civil Matters – High Court Slams Police for Forcing Key Handover. Karnataka High Court has ruled that the police cannot interfere in religious disputes without a specific law and order situation and ordered a departmental inquiry against Rajesh A. Batagurki, Circle Inspector, Kamalapura Police Station, for allegedly coercing the Uttaradi Mutt to hand over the keys to the Sri Narahariteertha Swamy Brundavana to devotees of the Raghavendra Swamy Mutt.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna, while allowing W.P. No. 100199/2025, filed by the Uttaradi Mutt, directed the Police Commissioner, Dharwad, to initiate an inquiry against the inspector within four months. "It is not the role of the police to settle civil or religious disputes. Their duty is to maintain peace, not to coerce one party into giving up control of property," the court held.

The petitioner, Sri Satyatma Teertha Swamiji, Peethadhipathi of Uttaradi Mutt, represented by his Chief Administrative Officer, approached the High Court after receiving threats from the local police to surrender the keys and control of the Narahariteertha Swamy Brundavana in Venkatapura Village, Vijayanagar District. The High Court observed that the police acted beyond their jurisdiction and in violation of previous court orders, including a stay granted by the Supreme Court.

"Police Forced the Mutt to Hand Over Keys Without Legal Authority" – Court Slams Overreach
The dispute between the Uttaradi Mutt and Raghavendra Swamy Mutt over the custody and control of Sri Narahariteertha Swamy Brundavana has been pending in the courts for over two decades.

The Uttaradi Mutt originally obtained a decree in its favor in O.S. No. 15/1998 from the Civil Court in 2003, which was upheld in R.A. No. 11/2003 by the First Appellate Court in 2006. However, the Karnataka High Court’s Dharwad Bench overturned these decisions on January 9, 2025, in R.S.A. No. 2892/2006, dismissing the suit filed by the Uttaradi Mutt.

Following this judgment, the Uttaradi Mutt sought relief from the Supreme Court, which granted an interim status quo order on January 17, 2025, directing that no changes be made to the existing possession of the disputed property.

Despite the Supreme Court’s status quo order, the Circle Inspector of Kamalapura Police Station allegedly summoned the Mutt’s manager and instructed him to hand over the keys to devotees of Raghavendra Swamy Mutt. The High Court observed that the police officer acted unlawfully, attempting to enforce a civil court order without proper legal procedures.

"The police have no authority to interfere in a purely civil dispute. They cannot force religious institutions to change possession of properties without a lawful order from a competent authority," Justice Nagaprasanna remarked.

"Uttaradi Mutt's Right to Appeal Cannot Be Frustrated by Police Actions" – High Court Protects Religious Autonomy
The High Court noted that the Uttaradi Mutt still had the legal right to challenge the Karnataka High Court's ruling before the Supreme Court. Any attempt to force a change in possession before the appeal period expired would amount to an abuse of power.

The judgment strongly criticized the police’s hasty intervention, stating, "The right to appeal is a fundamental part of due process. The police, acting on behalf of one party, cannot preempt a legal challenge by pressuring another party to surrender possession of a religious institution."

The High Court reaffirmed that law enforcement officials must act as neutral enforcers of the law, not as arbitrators in civil or religious disputes.

"Police Must Not Act as Agents of Any Religious Group" – Court Orders Disciplinary Inquiry
The High Court examined the recorded phone conversations between the Mutt manager and the police inspector, in which the officer allegedly pressured the Mutt to comply with the demands of the Raghavendra Swamy Mutt’s followers.

Justice Nagaprasanna noted, "It is clear as daylight that the third respondent, the Circle Inspector, acted beyond his powers. He interfered in a civil dispute despite repeated warnings from courts that the police should not meddle in religious matters unless there is a law and order problem."

Ordering a departmental inquiry against the inspector, the High Court directed:

•    The Police Commissioner, Dharwad, must conduct a full investigation into the inspector’s conduct.
•    The inquiry must determine who instructed the police to intervene and whether there was external influence.
•    The entire process must be completed within four months, and a report must be submitted to the court.
The court stated, "If law enforcement begins to take sides in religious disputes, it will erode public confidence in impartial governance. The rule of law must prevail over personal allegiances or pressures."

"Civil Disputes Must be Resolved by Courts, Not by Police Force" – Court Cites Previous Rulings

The High Court referred to its own 1999 ruling in W.P. No. 34766/1997, which explicitly barred police intervention in religious property disputes. That decision had held that law enforcement authorities should not interfere in temple or Mutt-related disputes unless there is a direct and immediate law and order threat.

"The present case is a textbook example of what the 1999 ruling warned against," the court observed. "Despite clear judicial instructions, the police attempted to interfere in a religious dispute without any legal justification."

Conclusion: Karnataka High Court Protects Religious Autonomy and Due Process
The Karnataka High Court’s ruling sends a strong message against police interference in religious disputes and upholds the autonomy of religious institutions. By ordering a departmental inquiry against the Circle Inspector, the court has reinforced that law enforcement must act within the bounds of legal authority and cannot be used as a tool by any religious faction.

The court’s direction to complete the inquiry within four months ensures accountability, preventing law enforcement from overstepping its jurisdiction in civil and religious matters.

Date of Decision: March 4, 2025