On Thursday, the Karnataka High Court instructed the principal secretary of the state tourism department to develop regulations for homestays. This directive was issued in response to a petition challenging the cancellation of the registration of a homestay in Kodagu, where a US tourist reportedly experienced a sexual assault.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj remarked, “This issue affects many people. It is a matter of public concern. Tourists arrive from various regions and may encounter negative experiences, leading to broader problems.”
The court’s ruling emphasized that while the Karnataka Tourism Trade (Facilitation and Regulation) Act governs registration, it does not comprehensively address all elements related to homestay services. Key issues such as fire safety compliance, kitchen operation permits from FSSAI, local municipal licenses, security measures, and pricing practices have all been sources of numerous complaints.
Furthermore, the court stated that an established homestay policy would clarify expectations for all parties involved, ensuring adherence to necessary guidelines.
Earlier on Wednesday, a coordinated bench decided to withhold its ruling on a petition from the homestay owner, who sought to dismiss the criminal charges filed against him in connection with the alleged assault on the US visitor. The bench underscored the urgent need for homestay regulation, noting their rapid proliferation and the associated security risks. “There is a pressing requirement to regulate homestays; they have proliferated to a point where their locations and activities are often unknown, putting everyone’s safety in jeopardy,” the court stated.
In this case, the homestay owner contested a registration cancellation order issued on April 22. His lawyer, advocate Angad Kamath, argued that the authorities had failed to provide notice prior to this cancellation, a point acknowledged by the government representative in court.
Consequently, the court modified the cancellation order, allowing it to be treated as a showcause notice, and granted the homestay owner until June 24 to respond. It also instructed the authorities to make a decision within two weeks following his response.
According to the US tourist’s allegations, the police arrested the homestay owner for allegedly shielding the worker accused of assault and for not reporting the incident to law enforcement.
A district court granted bail to the homestay owner on May 2, but denied bail to the 45-year-old worker on June 4.
The individuals involved face charges under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including section 64(1) for rape, section 351(2) for criminal intimidation, and sections 238 and 239 for concealing intentions to commit an offense and providing false information.
