Karnataka High Court directs government to examine comprehensive homestay regulatory framework

The Karnataka High Court has asked the state government to study the feasibility of creating a unified policy and regulatory structure for homestays, which would govern their establishment, operation, and oversight. The directive came from Justice Suraj Govindaraj while setting aside the cancellation of a homestay’s registration in Kutta village, Kodagu district, following an alleged sexual assault of a foreign national in April.

The court found that the district administration had revoked the registration without issuing any prior notice and without following the procedures laid down in the Karnataka Tourism Trade (Facilitation and Regulation) Act, 2015. The cancellation order was converted into a show-cause notice, giving the homestay owner an opportunity to respond. This step underscored the necessity for authorities to adhere to due process even in cases involving serious complaints.

Observing a growing number of disputes and legal petitions related to actions against homestays—stemming from complaints by tourists, neighbours, local bodies, and other stakeholders—the court stressed the need for a coordinated regulatory approach. It noted that without such a framework, homestay operators are often unsure about which approvals are required and from which authority, while enforcement agencies may act inconsistently.

The court identified nine critical areas that any future framework must address. These include fire safety measures in residential buildings adapted for guests, food safety and kitchen hygiene standards, compliance with building and zoning regulations, mandatory identity verification for guest security, consumer protection and transparent pricing, sanitation and waste management, clear division of responsibilities among government departments, a structured and non-arbitrary inspection mechanism, and other related aspects.

Recognising the diversity of homestay operations, the court remarked that a distinction may be necessary between small, family-run accommodations and larger commercial entities using the ‘homestay’ label. It stated that regulatory requirements should be proportionate to the scale and nature of operations, so as not to heap an undue burden on genuine small operators while ensuring adequate oversight of larger facilities that host many guests.

The absence of a consolidated framework, the court said, often leads to confusion and inefficiency. A clear policy would not only help operators comply with the law but also improve administrative effectiveness. The directive is expected to prompt the state government to review existing gaps and possibly frame new rules that balance tourism promotion with public safety and accountability.

The case highlights broader challenges in Karnataka’s homestay sector, which is a significant part of the state’s tourism economy, especially in districts like Kodagu and Chikkamagaluru. Stakeholders have long called for clearer guidelines that protect both visitors and local communities while supporting small entrepreneurs.