Bombay HC Appoints Court Committee to Inspect Kopeshwar Temple, Questions ₹12.84 Crore Ghat Expenditure from Heritage Funds
The Bombay High Court's Kolhapur Circuit Bench has flagged cracked ceilings, tilting pillars, and water seepage at the 12th-century Kopeshwar Temple, and questioned whether heritage funds are being diverted to unrelated public works.
A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court sitting at the Kolhapur Circuit Bench, comprising Justice Milind N. Jadhav and Justice Nandesh S. Deshpande, on 3 August 2026 appointed a five-member Court Committee of advocates practising at that bench to physically inspect the Kopeshwar Temple at Khidrapur and report within four weeks. The order, passed in Prashant Vasantrao Salunke v. Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Culture and Ors. (PIL No. 20 of 2026), comes against the backdrop of five structural emergencies at the temple that the bench catalogued in precise detail — two ceiling cracks, severe water seepage, two tilting load-bearing pillars in the Swarga Mandap, and a third pillar that has “virtually given way” and is propped by metal supports installed by the Archaeological Survey of India. The bench simultaneously expressed strong prima facie reservations about ₹12.84 crore proposed to be spent on a river Ghat lying 200 metres from the temple, drawn from the ₹44 crore specifically earmarked for heritage preservation out of a larger ₹101 crore State allocation.
The 12th-Century Temple at the Centre of the PIL
The Kopeshwar Temple at Khidrapur is a 12th-century structure dedicated to Lord Shiva, built by the Shilahara dynasty between 1109 and 1178 CE on the bank of the Krishna River. The bench described it as constructed from heavy volcanic black basalt rock sourced from the Sahyadri range and transported via the river during floods. The temple is distinguished by a circular open-topped hall called the Swarga Mandap, supported by 48 intricately carved pillars with interlocking mechanisms, and by 108 pillars supporting the overall structure. Its exterior rests on carvings of 92 elephants. The bench noted it is a rare joint shrine venerating both Shiva and Vishnu and that it unusually lacks a Nandi statue at the main shrine entrance.
The temple sits in a flood-prone location. The bench recorded that in 2019 the entire temple, including all five structures, was submerged under water up to a height of 12 feet. That event, combined with ongoing weather exposure and monsoon cycles, has weakened the structure over time.
The PIL was filed seeking the resurrection, restoration, augmentation, preservation, and protection of this heritage site. The present hearing on 3 August 2026 was held pursuant to directions issued in a previous order dated 6 July 2026.
Five Structural Emergencies the Bench Identified
The bench set out five pressing structural concerns, with one of the judges having incidentally visited the temple on 1 August 2026 during a heavy downpour. The bench was careful to note that the visit was entirely coincidental and not connected to the proceedings, and that observations made without expert training could differ from a formal expert opinion. Nevertheless, those observations were shared with all advocates and with Mr. Samadhan Patil, the Deputy Executive Engineer from MSRDC present in court, all of whom acknowledged them.
The first two concerns relate to the main shrine. Two visible cracks have developed in the ceiling — one in the inner sanctum (Garbhagriha) and one at the temple entrance. On the south side of the Garbhagriha, there is extensive water seepage over the entire wall, leaving it completely wet. The Deputy Executive Engineer agreed before the court that these require immediate attention.
The remaining three concerns relate to the Swarga Mandap's 48 pillars. Two pillars have tilted due to load, weather, and wear. A third pillar has, in the bench's words, virtually given way — the ASI has already placed metal props to arrest its fall. The bench noted that advocates and the Deputy Executive Engineer agreed that if even one of the 48 interlocking pillars gives way, the entire Swarga Mandap could collapse, pointing to a documented precedent from a similar temple.
The bench directed the ASI and the Collector — who holds responsibility for utilising Government funds allocated for the temple — to immediately address these five issues and report to the court at the next hearing.
Questions Over a ₹10 Crore Compound Wall and Structural Survey Contract
The State's additional affidavit, filed in compliance with the 6 July 2026 order, was presented to the bench by the Additional Government Pleader, Mr. Siddheshwar B. Kalel. Paragraph 3 of that affidavit dealt with approximately ₹10 crore proposed to be spent on a compound wall, with the State explaining that the figure includes a ramp for persons with disabilities and associated pathway and pavement works.
The bench was not persuaded. It found the expenditure “beyond comprehension to a prudent man” and noted that the State had not explained the scope of work in measurable terms. The bench observed that the outer compound wall is already fully raised, with only some inner compound wall construction currently ongoing, and asked the State to justify how the total expenditure had been arrived at. It said that scrutiny of this figure was one of the tasks it was assigning to the Court Committee.
A separate concern arose around a Letter of Intent issued by MSRDC to M/s. Structural Designers and Consultants for a structural survey of the temple, at a fee of ₹24 lakh agreed through private negotiation rather than a public tender process. Senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Yuvraj Narvankar, submitted that this approach — awarding a substantial contract without tendering — could set a precedent for the entire restoration being handed out privately. He also submitted, on instructions, that the firm may have been blacklisted by the State at some point, and undertook to file an affidavit with research on this. The bench recorded these submissions and indicated that this too required transparency.
Prima Facie Finding: River Ghat Spend Has No Nexus with Heritage Preservation
The most pointed observations in the order concern ₹12.84 crore proposed by MSRDC for construction of a river Ghat adjacent to the temple. The bench acknowledged that the temple's location — surrounded by the U-shaped Krishna River on almost three sides, with Karnataka on the opposite bank — gives the river setting some contextual relevance. However, it found the proximity argument insufficient.
The Deputy Executive Engineer confirmed before the court that the Ghat is situated approximately 200 metres from the temple and is separated from it by a fully constructed and operational Development Plan road. The bench recorded that when this was put to the AGP and the Deputy Executive Engineer, both “agreed that, yes, the Ghat is in the nature of a public development.”
The bench's finding was direct: spending ₹12.84 crore on a public development project 200 metres away from the temple, out of the ₹44 crore specifically set aside for heritage preservation from the ₹101 crore State allocation, is “prima facie” not feasible and cannot be approved. It described such expenditure as pertaining to “a completely alien development not having any nexus with the heritage temple” and said that temple funds could not be diverted in this manner. It noted that once the temple is conserved, remaining funds could appropriately be applied to other development purposes, but that spending on the Ghat before addressing immediate structural emergencies was a disagreement the court was recording clearly.
The bench also flagged that site-specific bye-laws mandated under Section 20E of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act and the Heritage Bye-laws/Rules, 2011, have not been framed for the Kopeshwar Temple even after more than 15 years. The ASI was put on notice to file an affidavit addressing this on the next date.
Governance and Security Concerns at the Site
Beyond the structural and financial issues, the bench raised concerns about day-to-day governance of the heritage site. It noted that ASI guards posted at the temple are all women guards and that they are effectively unable to prevent local residents from leading cows inside the temple on certain days for worship and feeding. The bench directed the ASI to ensure this practice is stopped.
Visitors bringing pet dogs inside the temple were also raised, with the Police Patil informing the court that a video of this practice is available. The bench found that ASI rules and regulation boards are absent from the exterior of the temple — those that exist are placed inside and are in a broken, dilapidated condition. It directed the ASI to display appropriate signage outside the temple and report compliance.
On planning permissions around the temple, Mr. Narvankar informed the court that the Gram Panchayat had been acting as a planning authority and issuing permissions for structures surrounding the temple, which the bench described as “a matter of serious concern.” The ASI communicated to the Gram Panchayat requesting details of permissions issued. Mr. Sutar, for the Gram Panchayat, submitted that no permissions have been granted since 2010. The bench noted this and reiterated that the ASI is the competent authority under the Act for the core and regulated area, and that the rule of law must govern any action against structure owners, without coercive or knee-jerk action.
Court Committee: Composition and Mandate
To bring independent fact-finding to bear on the disputed expenditure and the temple's structural condition, the bench constituted a Court Committee of five advocates practising at the Kolhapur Circuit Bench, to function through the High Court Legal Aid Services Committee, Mumbai, Circuit Bench at Kolhapur. The members appointed are:
- Mr. Ritesh M. Thobade
- Mr. Rugwed Kinkar
- Mr. Utkarsha Desai
- Mr. Siddharth Shitole
- Ms. Bhargavi Patil
The Registry was directed to issue appointment orders forthwith along with the complete case papers. The Committee is to visit the temple, confer with the Gram Panchayat, the Police Patil, the Deputy Executive Engineer (directed to assist them), the PIL petitioner, and any other interested persons. The bench directed police authorities to provide protection to the Committee during its site visit, and asked the Collector to spare time if possible to provide information and logistical support.
The Committee's mandate covers: the overall status of the temple; the justification and scope for the ₹10 crore compound wall expenditure; and the question of whether the ₹12.84 crore Ghat project has any nexus with the heritage site. The bench was explicit that the Committee is an independent fact-finding body, and that its directions should not be taken adversely by the Respondents, being intended solely to ensure transparency in public expenditure.
Outcome
The Court Committee is directed to submit its report within four weeks from 3 August 2026 and supply copies to all parties. The ASI is directed to extend full assistance to the Committee. The matter stands over to 31 August 2026.