Karnataka HC Stays Grama Panchayat's Order to Remove Buntings, Gives Law College Eight Weeks to Replace Images of Advocates
The Karnataka High Court intervened after a Grama Panchayat directed a Mandya trust to remove buntings showing a person in advocate's attire, citing Bar Council of India advertising rules.
The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, on 22 June 2026, disposed of a writ petition filed by M/S Bharathi Education Society Trust, a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, which runs multiple educational institutions in Maddur Taluk, Mandya District. Justice B M Shyam Prasad, sitting singly, stayed the Grama Panchayat's communication directing the Trust to remove advertising buntings for eight weeks, on terms requiring the Trust to replace all images of persons — specifically those depicted in what appeared to be advocate's attire — with content limited to the details of the Law Degree Course and the institution. The order reflects the intersection of local panchayat authority over public displays and the Bar Council of India Rules prohibiting advertisement of individual advocates.
The Panchayat's Communication and the Trust's Grievance
The Trust's grievance arose from a communication dated 02.06.2026 issued by the Panchayat Development Officer, Bharathinagara Grama Panchayat, Maddur Taluk, Mandya District (the second respondent). The communication directed the Trust to remove buntings that displayed the image of a person, warning that action would be taken if they were not removed. The Panchayat's position, as recorded in its communication, was that while the Trust was permitted to put up buntings, that permission did not extend to buntings bearing the image of a person. The Panchayat further noted that despite an earlier notice, the Trust had not complied.
The Trust responded to the Panchayat on 10.06.2026 (Annexure-F). It then filed Writ Petition No. 18384 of 2026 before the Karnataka High Court, seeking to quash the impugned communication dated 02.06.2026 and to direct the Panchayat to consider its reply of 10.06.2026 before taking any action.
Bar Council of India Rules and the Images on the Buntings
The photographs of the buntings, produced before the court as Annexure-C series, showed a person dressed in what the court described as attire prescribed for advocates. Counsel for the Trust, Sri K B Monesh Kumar, argued that the buntings were put up in accordance with a permission and an agreement concluded between the Trust and the Grama Panchayat on 29.08.2023. He also submitted that the Trust had received permission from the Bar Council of India for commencement of a law degree course from the academic year 2026-27, and that the buntings were connected to that course.
Justice Shyam Prasad, however, pointed out during the hearing that the Bar Council of India Rules prohibit advertisement of an individual. This is directly relevant because the buntings displayed the image of a person in advocate's attire, which the court read as a potential breach of those rules. When this was put to counsel, he did not resist the court's concern. Instead, he sought time for the Trust to replace the existing buntings with ones showing the image of a person — or even a student — in a form that would not fall foul of the Bar Council's rules, while ensuring that the Trust's right to advertise its law course was not lost entirely.
How the Court Reasoned
The court accepted that the Trust was willing to remove any content from its buntings that could amount to a violation of the Bar Council of India Rules. Given that willingness, the court held that the Grama Panchayat could not move precipitously to terminate the Trust's right to display buntings altogether. The court directed that if the Trust replaces the image of a person in advocate's attire with content that is about the Law Degree Course and the details of the institution, the second respondent's authority to act under its 02.06.2026 communication would not be exercised during the period of replacement.
The court also took into account the existing agreement dated 29.08.2023 between the Trust and the Grama Panchayat, directing that the Panchayat's reconsideration of the matter after the eight-week period must not hinder the Bar Council's permission or recognition in favour of the Trust's institution, nor override the terms of that agreement.
The Additional Government Advocate, Sri Bopanna Belliappa, appeared for the State of Karnataka (the first respondent) and was called upon to accept notice in the matter.
Order
Justice B M Shyam Prasad disposed of the writ petition on the following terms:
The second respondent, the Panchayat Development Officer, Bharathinagara Grama Panchayat, was directed to defer action under the impugned communication dated 02.06.2026 for a period of eight weeks from 22 June 2026.
The Trust was reserved with liberty to replace the existing buntings with buntings that carry only the details of the Law Degree Course and the institution, and to file an affidavit before the second respondent confirming that replacement.
At the end of the eight-week period, the second respondent was directed to consider the matter afresh in light of the replacement carried out by the Trust, without hindering the Bar Council of India's permission or recognition in favour of the Trust's institution, and without prejudicing the agreement dated 29.08.2023.