24 Feb 2026·Source: The Hindu

5 min

Polity & GovernanceSocial IssuesNEWS

Karnataka HC Orders Crowd Control SOP Enforcement Until New Law

Karnataka High Court mandates crowd control SOP until government enacts new legislation.

Photo by zablanca_clicks

The Karnataka High Court has mandated the enforcement of the state government's standard operating procedure (SOP) for crowd control and mass gathering management until the Karnataka legislature enacts a specific law. This order was issued by a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha while hearing a suo motu Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition related to a stampede outside the M. Chinnaswamy cricket stadium in Bengaluru in June 2025. The court has granted the amicus curiae the option to revive the petition in the future if deemed necessary.

The Home Department has submitted the SOP to the Legislative Assembly for review alongside the proposed Karnataka Crowd Control (Managing Crowd at Events and place of Gathering) Bill, 2025. This Bill aims to provide a legal framework for managing crowds at events and gatherings in Karnataka. The SOP outlines specific measures for crowd management, including risk assessment, permit issuance, and deployment of security personnel.

This directive from the Karnataka High Court underscores the urgent need for a comprehensive legal framework to manage large gatherings and prevent crowd-related disasters. The court's intervention highlights the importance of balancing public safety with the right to assembly, a critical issue for governance in a densely populated country like India. This news is relevant for UPSC exams, particularly GS Paper II (Governance, Constitution, Polity, Social Justice and International relations).

Key Facts

The Karnataka High Court directed the enforcement of a crowd control SOP.

The SOP was submitted by the State government.

The SOP incorporates suggestions from amicus curiae and other parties.

The directive was issued while addressing a suo motu PIL petition.

The petition was related to a stampede outside the M. Chinnaswamy stadium in June 2025.

The stampede claimed 11 lives.

UPSC Exam Angles

GS Paper II: Governance, Constitution, Polity, Social Justice and International relations

Connects to syllabus topics on fundamental rights, state responsibilities, and legislative processes

Potential question types: Analyzing the balance between fundamental rights and public order, evaluating the effectiveness of existing laws on crowd management, and assessing the role of the judiciary in safeguarding citizen safety

In Simple Words

The court wants the government to use a safety plan for big crowds. This plan helps avoid accidents at events like concerts or sports games. It's like having rules for how many people can be in a room, so everyone stays safe.

India Angle

In India, huge crowds gather for festivals, political rallies, and religious events. This plan will help keep people safe at these events. Think of it like managing the crowds during Diwali or a big cricket match.

For Instance

Imagine a local temple festival where thousands gather. The SOP would ensure there are enough exits, crowd control barriers, and emergency services to prevent a stampede, just like managing traffic during rush hour.

This matters because it can save lives and prevent injuries at crowded events. It makes sure everyone can enjoy public gatherings safely.

Crowd safety: Better planning means safer events for everyone.

The Karnataka High Court has directed that the standard operating procedure (SOP) for crowd control and mass gathering management, submitted by the State government, be enforced until a law for crowd management is enacted. The decision was made by a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha while addressing a suo motu PIL petition related to a stampede outside the M.

Chinnaswamy cricket stadium in June 2025. The court has granted the amicus curiae the liberty to renew the petition if necessary in the future. The Home Department has forwarded the SOP to the Legislative Assembly for review alongside the proposed Karnataka Crowd Control (Managing Crowd at Events and place of Gathering) Bill, 2025.

Expert Analysis

The Karnataka High Court's directive to enforce the SOP for crowd control highlights the interplay of several key concepts in Indian governance. The immediate context is the need for effective crowd management, especially after the June 2025 stampede in Bengaluru. However, the court's action also touches upon the broader principles of fundamental rights, the state's responsibility for public order, and the legislative process involved in enacting laws.

Fundamental rights, enshrined in Part III of the Indian Constitution, guarantee citizens the right to assemble peacefully without arms (Article 19(1)(b)). However, this right is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order, as outlined in Article 19(3). The Karnataka High Court's order reflects the need to balance the right to assembly with the state's duty to maintain public order and ensure the safety of its citizens. The proposed Karnataka Crowd Control Bill, 2025, seeks to provide a legal framework for imposing such reasonable restrictions on mass gatherings.

The concept of public order falls under the State List in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, giving state legislatures the power to legislate on matters related to maintaining peace and tranquility within their territories. The Karnataka government's move to enact a crowd control law is an exercise of this power. The state's responsibility for public order also extends to ensuring the safety and security of citizens during mass gatherings, which necessitates effective crowd management strategies.

The legislative process is central to this issue, as the Karnataka High Court has directed the state government to enact a law on crowd control. The proposed Karnataka Crowd Control Bill, 2025, is currently under review by the Legislative Assembly. Once passed, this law will provide a statutory basis for the SOP on crowd management, giving it greater legal force and enforceability. For UPSC aspirants, understanding the relationship between fundamental rights, public order, and the legislative process is crucial for both prelims and mains exams. Questions may arise on the constitutional basis for restricting fundamental rights, the division of powers between the center and states, and the role of the judiciary in safeguarding fundamental rights while upholding public order.

Visual Insights

Karnataka: Crowd Control Measures

Highlights Karnataka, where the High Court ordered enforcement of crowd control SOPs.

Loading interactive map...

📍Karnataka

More Information

Background

The need for effective crowd management in India arises from its large population and the frequency of mass gatherings, including religious festivals, political rallies, and social events. Historically, inadequate crowd control measures have led to tragic stampedes and loss of life. The National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) issued guidelines in 2014 for managing crowds at events and mass gatherings, highlighting issues such as casual permit issuance and lack of trained personnel. Several existing laws touch upon aspects of crowd management, but none provide a comprehensive framework. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, prohibits unlawful assembly, while the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, empowers police to disperse assemblies that threaten public peace. The Police Act, 1861, and the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, grant authorities the power to require licenses for public assemblies and maintain order. However, these laws are often insufficient to address the complexities of modern crowd management. The Karnataka High Court's intervention underscores the importance of balancing the fundamental right to assemble peacefully with the state's responsibility to maintain public order and ensure citizen safety. The proposed Karnataka Crowd Control Bill, 2025, seeks to provide a comprehensive legal framework for crowd management, addressing issues such as permit requirements, organizer responsibilities, and penalties for violations. This reflects a growing recognition of the need for specific legislation to prevent crowd-related disasters.

Latest Developments

In Tamil Nadu, the Madras High Court has been actively involved in regulating political rallies and public meetings, particularly after a stampede at a political rally in Karur led to 41 deaths. The court prohibited major political events on state and national highways until standard operating procedures (SOPs) for mass gatherings were established. This led to the Tamil Nadu government drafting SOPs requiring parties to seek permission, provide details of crowd strength, and potentially pay refundable security deposits.

Several political parties have challenged these SOPs, arguing that they unfairly prioritize certain recognized parties or impose impractical compliance burdens. Despite these challenges, the courts have consistently emphasized the need to balance political freedom with public convenience and safety. The debate continues on how to ensure that political mobilization does not disrupt public life, impede traffic, or threaten safety.

Looking ahead, the enactment of the Karnataka Crowd Control Bill, 2025, will be a significant development. It remains to be seen whether other states will follow suit and adopt similar legislation to address the challenges of crowd management. The effectiveness of these laws will depend on their implementation and enforcement, as well as the cooperation of organizers and the public.

Practice Questions (MCQs)

1. Consider the following statements regarding the right to assemble peacefully in India: 1. It is an absolute right guaranteed by the Constitution without any restrictions. 2. Article 19(3) of the Constitution allows for reasonable restrictions on this right in the interest of public order. 3. The state government has the power to legislate on matters related to public order under the State List. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

A.1 and 2 only
B.2 and 3 only
C.1 and 3 only
D.1, 2 and 3

Show Answer

Answer: B

Statement 1 is INCORRECT: The right to assemble peacefully is NOT absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions. Statement 2 is CORRECT: Article 19(3) allows for reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order. Statement 3 is CORRECT: Public order falls under the State List, granting state governments legislative power. Therefore, only statements 2 and 3 are correct.

2. Which of the following Acts empowers the police to disperse an assembly that threatens public peace?

A.The Police Act, 1861
B.The Disaster Management Act, 2005
C.The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
D.The National Security Act, 1980

Show Answer

Answer: C

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 empowers the police to disperse an assembly that threatens public peace or security. The Police Act, 1861 grants authorities the power to require licenses for public assemblies. The Disaster Management Act, 2005 is applicable for crowd management in the context of disasters.

3. The National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) issued guidelines for managing crowds at events and mass gatherings in which year?

A.2005
B.2010
C.2014
D.2020

Show Answer

Answer: C

The National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) issued guidelines for managing crowds at events and mass gatherings in 2014. These guidelines highlighted key issues such as casual permit issuance, lack of sufficient manpower, and deployment of untrained security personnel.