Not proper to pass any protective order sans seeing record: Karnataka High Court in land encroachment case against Sri Sri Ravi Shankar
Sri Sri Ravi Shankar Bengaluru Land Encroachment Case: Justice M Nagaprasanna was hearing a petition filed by the spiritual leader seeking quashing of the FIR and said that halting the probe at this stage would run contrary to earlier directions of a division bench.
4 min readNew DelhiUpdated: Jan 9, 2026 06:27 PM IST
Sri Sri Ravi Shankar Bengaluru Land Encroachment Case: Karnataka High Court directed the state counsel to secure the entire records relating to the case and place them before the court on the next date of hearing. (Express Photo: Rohit Jain Paras)
Public Land Encroachment Case: The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday refused to stay further investigation or grant any interim protection to spiritual leader Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, who has been named as an accused in an FIR alleging encroachment of public land in Bengaluru.
Justice M Nagaprasanna was hearing a petition filed by the spiritual leader seeking quashing of the FIR and said that halting the probe at this stage would run contrary to earlier directions of a division bench that had ordered action against encroachers of public land.
“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. Petitioner is at liberty to move, in the event any notice of investigation is issued upon the petitioner,” the bench said.
The matter has been listed for further consideration on January 12.
Rejecting the request for interim protection, Justice Nagaprasanna made it clear that the court was not inclined to interfere at this stage.
Background
Ravi Shankar was arraigned as a respondent in the PIL, and was subsequently named as an accused in a case registered last year under Section 192A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, which prescribes imprisonment and fine for unlawful occupation of government land.
The FIR in question was registered by the Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force Police following directions issued in a public interest litigation before the high court.
The PIL had alleged large-scale encroachment of public land, including construction over a rajakaluve (storm water drain connecting lakes) in areas falling under Kaggalipura Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk.
Appearing for the petitioner, advocate P Prasanna Kumar contended that Ravi Shankar had “nothing to do with the activities of the other accused.”
He argued that the spiritual leader neither owns any property in the area nor has he encroached upon any land, and therefore no investigation ought to proceed against him.
The counsel further submitted that the division bench order was based on a government report and a memo with appended maps, which did not name Ravi Shankar.
“The memo does not implicate the petitioner in any manner. He is in no way concerned with the alleged encroachments carried out by others,” the counsel argued, urging the court to stay proceedings insofar as Ravi Shankar was concerned.
Rejecting the request for interim protection, Justice Nagaprasanna made it clear that the court was not inclined to interfere at this stage.
However, the court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach it again if any notice of investigation is issued specifically to him.
The high court directed the additional state public prosecutor to secure the entire records relating to the case and place them before the court on the next date of hearing.
Earlier, the division bench, while disposing of the PIL had noted that official maps indicated constructions at various spots and that a substantial portion had also been encroached upon.
Story continues below this ad
Recording the state government’s stand that encroachments had indeed taken place, the had bench directed authorities to take action against encroachers “as is warranted, albeit, in accordance with law.”
Vineet Upadhyay is an Assistant Editor with The Indian Express, where he leads specialized coverage of the Indian judicial system.
Expertise
Specialized Legal Authority: Vineet has spent the better part of his career analyzing the intricacies of the law. His expertise lies in "demystifying" judgments from the Supreme Court of India, various High Courts, and District Courts. His reporting covers a vast spectrum of legal issues, including:
Constitutional & Civil Rights: Reporting on landmark rulings regarding privacy, equality, and state accountability.
Criminal Justice & Enforcement: Detailed coverage of high-profile cases involving the Enforcement Directorate (ED), NIA, and POCSO matters.
Consumer Rights & Environmental Law: Authoritative pieces on medical negligence compensation, environmental protection (such as the "living person" status of rivers), and labor rights.
Over a Decade of Professional Experience: Prior to joining The Indian Express, he served as a Principal Correspondent/Legal Reporter for The Times of India and held significant roles at The New Indian Express. His tenure has seen him report from critical legal hubs, including Delhi and Uttarakhand. ... Read More
Rejecting the request for interim protection, Justice Nagaprasanna made it clear that the court was not inclined to interfere at this stage.
