The Karnataka High Court stayed the investigation of Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, founder of the Art of Living Foundation in Bengaluru, on a first information report (FIR) registered suo-motu by the Bengaluru Metropolitan Task Force (BMTF) in September 2025 on charges of encroachment on certain government lands against him and others.
“A study of the complaint would prima facie not indicate that no charges have been brought against this petitioner. Without any charges, the petitioner cannot be drawn into a criminal network, unless the public prosecutor records something that would indicate that the petitioner is directly involved in certain acts,” the court said in its preliminary measure, which will be valid until January 21, i.e. until the next date for hearing the petition.
Provisional order
Justice M. Nagaprasanna issued the interim order on January 13 on the plea of Mr. Ravi Shankar.
The court stayed the investigation as the BMTF could not produce documents to prove the allegations made in the FIR that it encroached on government land at survey numbers 160, 164/1, 164/2, 150 and 137, located in Kaggalipura village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, submitted records by January 13.
The petition claimed that Mr. Ravi Shankar neither owns any property nor is he illegally occupying any government land on these survey numbers.
After DRINKING
The background to the registration of the offense was the order passed on September 9, 2025 by the division bench of the court while disposing of a PIL petition filed in 2023 by Chandrashekhar N. and others who had alleged encroachment on government lands and lakes in these survey numbers by the petitioner and others including a real estate firm.
As the report submitted by the government before the division bench mentioned construction of flats allegedly encroaching on some government land and a lake, the bench asked the authorities to take appropriate action in accordance with law.
The public prosecutor said that the petitioner’s name had appeared as a respondent in the PIL petition under which the present FIR was registered and therefore no lapse could be found on the part of the BMTF in registering the offence, as they had not committed any procedural lapses.
However, the petitioner pointed out to the court that the BMTF had named him as an accused in the FIR even though his name was not mentioned in the hit report filed before the division bench in the PIL petition.
Published – 14 Jan 2026 20:54 IST
