Karnataka High Court stays probe against Sri Sri Ravi Shankar in alleged govt. land encroachment case

The High Court of Karnataka has stayed the investigation against Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, founder of Art of Living Foundation, Bengaluru, based on a First Information Report (FIR) registered suo-motu by the Bengaluru Metropolitan Task Force (BMTF) in September 2025 on allegations of encroachment of certain government lands against him and others.

“A perusal of the complaint would prima facie indicate no allegations against this petitioner. Without any allegations, the petitioner cannot be drawn into the web of crime, unless the State Public Prosecutor would place on record something to indicate that the petitioner is directly involved in certain acts,” the court said in its interim order, which will be in force till January 21, the next date of hearing on the petition.

Interim order

Justice M. Nagaprasanna passed the interim order on January 13 on the petition filed by Mr. Ravi Shankar.

The Court stayed the probe as the BMTF could not produce documents to show that the allegation made in the FIR that he has encroached government land at survey numbers 160, 164/1, 164/2, 150 and 137, situated at Kaggalipura Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, even after the court on January 7 had given time till January 13 to produce records.

It has been contended in the petition that Mr. Ravi Shankar neither owns any property nor is in illegal occupation of any government lands on these survey numbers.

Following a PIL

The backdrop of registration of the crime was an order passed on September 9, 2025, by a division bench of the Court while disposing of in a PIL petition, filed in 2023 by Chandrashekhar N. and others, who had alleging encroachment of 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 indicated construction of apartments allegedly encroaching certain government lands and a lake, the bench had asked the authorities to take appropriate steps as per the law.

The State Public Prosecutor said that the name of the petitioner did spring as a respondent in the PIL petition, pursuant to which, the present FIR was registered and hence no fault can be found with the BMTF in registering the crime as they have not committed any procedural aberration.

However, the petitioner pointed out to the court that the BMTF had arraigned him as an accused in the FIR even though his name was not there in the report of encroachments submitted before the division bench in the PIL petition.