The High Court of Karnataka has asked why the Ramanagaram Deputy Commissioner did not impose any restriction on the number of persons allowed at the wedding of Nikhil, son of former Chief Minister H.D. Kumaraswamy.
The court posed this question to the State government while expressing surprise over the blanket permission granted by the DC on April 16 without imposing any limit on the number of guests. The permission letter stated that those persons identified by a representative of Mr. Kumaraswamy could be allowed into the wedding venue.
A special Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Justice B.V. Nagarathna made these observations during a videoconference hearing on PIL petitions. The government had told the court that between 80 and 95 people attended the ceremony on April 17.
Making it clear that it was not concerned only with the matter of Nikhil’s wedding, the Bench said the objective of the lockdown is defeated if the policy of the State and Union governments is that more than 50 persons can attend a ceremony during it.
The Bench also noted that even the latest guidelines, issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs on May 1, relaxing the lockdown norms make it very clear that “marriage-related gatherings shall ensure social distancing, and the maximum number of guests allowed shall not be more than 50”.
If it is the policy of the State government to grant permission for weddings without any restriction on the number of persons allowed, then other people also should get to benefit from it, the Bench observed, pointing out that several people had to cancel weddings because of the lockdown.
Clarification
The Bench also directed both the State and Union governments to clarify whether the district magistrate had the power to grant permission to hold weddings, irrespective of number of attendees.
As the guidelines issued by the MHA on April 15 do not indicate the number of persons allowed to attend weddings, does it mean any number of persons could have been allowed to attend such functions prior to the May 1 guidelines, the Bench asked.
The Bench orally observed that at the very least, the State government should have accepted that not restricting the number of attendees was a mistake. The court adjourned further hearing on the matter till May 12 after directing the State government to also submit information on the number of vehicle movement passes issued.
