BENGALURU
The Karnataka High Court has stayed the investigation against spiritual leader Sri Sri Ravishankar in a public land encroachment case registered by the Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force (BMTF) until the next hearing scheduled for January 21.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed that a prima facie reading of the complaint revealed no specific allegations against Sri Sri Ravishankar. “In the absence of any allegation, the petitioner cannot be drawn into the web of crime, unless the special public prosecutor places material on record showing his direct involvement,” the court said, ordering a stay on further investigation until the next date of hearing.
Sri Sri Ravishankar, founder of the Art of Living Foundation, contended that the complaint had its origin in a 2023 Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought directions to the State to consider representations and demolish apartments allegedly encroaching on government land at Kaggalipura village in Uttarahalli Hobli of Bengaluru South taluk. His counsel, advocate P. Prasanna Kumar, submitted that while Sri Sri Ravishankar was named as a respondent in the PIL, the BMTF complaint did not attribute any specific role or overt act to him in relation to the alleged encroachment.
It was argued that in the absence of concrete allegations, registration of the FIR and continuation of the investigation amounted to a gross abuse of the legal process, warranting quashing of proceedings against the petitioner. The court was also informed that Sri Sri Ravishankar did not own any land in the concerned survey numbers at Kaggalipura, effectively ruling out any question of encroachment on his part.
Further submissions pointed out that police notices and official records indicated land-grabbing allegations only against other accused persons, and that Sri Sri Ravishankar’s name did not feature in the report submitted by the Bengaluru South tahsildar to the jurisdictional court. The petitioner alleged that his subsequent inclusion as an accused, based on the same report, reflected mala fide intent to tarnish his reputation.
Opposing the plea, special public prosecutor B.A. Belliappa defended the BMTF’s action, stating that since Sri Sri Ravishankar was named as a respondent in the PIL, his inclusion in the complaint involved no procedural irregularity.
