No Protective Order for Sri Sri Ravishankar, HC allows Encroachment Investigation to Continue

On January 7, 2026 the Karnataka High Court declined to stay further investigation or grant any interim protection to spiritual leader Sri Sri Ravishankar, who has been named as an accused in a criminal case alleging encroachment of public land in Bengaluru. The Court held that any restraint on investigation at this stage would directly cut across binding directions earlier issued by a Division Bench in a public interest matter concerning large-scale encroachments on government land.

The case stemmed from the registration of an FIR by the Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force Police alleging offences punishable under Section 192A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, which deals with unlawful occupation of government land. The FIR traces its origin to directions issued by a Division Bench of the High Court in a public interest petition alleging encroachment of public lands and construction over a Rajakaluve.

In the PIL, the Division Bench had noted from official records and maps that constructions had come up in multiple survey numbers of Kaggalipura Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, and that a substantial portion of a tank area had also been encroached. Recording the State’s position “that in fact there has been encroachment of public lands”, the Bench disposed of the PIL by directing the authorities to initiate action against encroachers “as is warranted, albeit, in accordance with law”.

The present petitioner was arrayed as a respondent in the PIL and was subsequently shown as an accused in the FIR registered pursuant to the Division Bench directions.

The Counsel of the petitioner submitted that the Petitioner had no connection whatsoever with the alleged encroachments. It was argued that he neither owned any property nor had encroached upon government land, and therefore the investigation deserved to be stayed insofar as he was concerned. Emphasis was placed on the fact that the Division Bench order was founded on a government report and appended map, which, according to the petitioner, did not specifically name him as being involved in the encroachments.

On this basis, a plea was made seeking quashing of the FIR or, at the very least, interim protection from coercive steps during investigation.

The Single Judge declined to accede to the request for interim relief at this stage. Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed that halting the investigation would be inconsistent with the express directions issued by the Division Bench in the PIL. The Court observed that “To stall any kind of investigation now would be running counter to what the Division Bench observes and permitting the appropriate authorities to act against the encroachers. Therefore, without looking into the records, it would not be appropriate to pass any protective order at this juncture.”

The Court, however, clarified that the petitioner was not remediless and noted that liberty was reserved in his favour to seek appropriate relief if any notice of investigation was issued to him. The Court further directed the Additional State Public Prosecutor to secure the entire records and place them before the Court on the next date of hearing.

In light of the foregoing, the Court refused to stay the investigation or grant interim protection to the petitioner at this stage. The matter has been directed to be listed for further consideration on January 12th, with the State required to place the complete records before the Court on the next date.

Source: Agencies