Vitiligo Cannot Bar Hereditary Temple Priest from Performing Pujas, Karnataka HC Tells Chamundeshwari Temple Authorities

Karnataka High Court directs the Executive Officer of Chamundeshwari Temple to permit the hereditary Sannidhi Paricharaka to perform pujas, ruling that vitiligo is no ground for exclusion under Article 14 of the Constitution.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj, sitting singly at the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, on 1 July 2026 allowed a writ petition filed by Sri N. Anil Kumar, the hereditary Sannidhi Paricharaka at the Chamundeshwari Temple on Chamundi Hills, Mysuru. The Executive Officer of the temple had been interfering with his puja duties on the ground that he suffers from vitiligo. The court issued a writ of mandamus directing the Executive Officer to abide by a 2016 order of the Deputy Commissioner, Mysore, which had recognised Anil Kumar's hereditary rights to the post, and to permit him to carry out the pujas without interference. The court held that excluding a person from performing religious duties solely because of a non-contagious skin condition offends Article 14 and the constitutional values of dignity and equal opportunity.

How the Hereditary Right Came to Anil Kumar

Anil Kumar's uncle had been serving as a Sannidhi Paricharaka at the Chamundeshwari Temple during his lifetime. By a registered Will dated 17 October 2015, the uncle bequeathed his hereditary right to the post to Anil Kumar. The uncle died on 17 January 2016. Anil Kumar thereupon applied for transfer of the inherited rights in his favour.

The Deputy Commissioner, Mysore District, by order No. DVS-RD 1/Sibbandi/CR16/16-17 dated 21 June 2016, formally transferred the rights and privileges attached to the post to Anil Kumar. He began discharging the duties of the post after that order.

The Vitiligo Objection and the Expert Findings in 2016–2017

Complaints were received from devotees objecting to Anil Kumar performing pujas on the ground that he suffered from vitiligo. An enquiry was conducted and he was subjected to a medical examination. The competent medical authority issued a certificate dated 1 February 2017 certifying that the condition was not contagious.

A separate dispute then arose over whether a person with vitiligo could perform pujas at all under the applicable religious texts. The opinion of Agama Pandits was sought. After examining the relevant religious texts, the Agama Pandits submitted a report dated 20 December 2017 stating that nothing in those texts prohibited or prevented a person suffering from vitiligo from performing pujas or discharging duties as a Sannidhi Paricharaka. The Commissioner, Department of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, passed an order bearing No. ADM/1/CR/102/16-17 dated 20 December 2017 in consequence. Anil Kumar was thereafter permitted to perform the pujas and continued to do so.

Fresh Interference in 2026 and the Representation

In 2026, the Executive Officer of the Chamundeshwari Temple again began interfering with Anil Kumar's discharge of duties, citing his vitiligo. He was prevented from performing pujas and other related activities. His turn to perform puja was due to commence on 1 July 2026. He submitted a representation dated 16 June 2026 to the concerned authorities. That representation was not considered, prompting him to file Writ Petition No. 19727 of 2026 before the High Court.

The writ petition sought two primary reliefs: a writ of mandamus directing the Executive Officer to abide by the 2016 and 2017 orders and permit Anil Kumar to perform hereditary duties as Sannidhi Paricharaka for two months in a calendar year, and a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from interfering on the ground of his skin condition.

The Government's Objection: Delegation, Not Vitiligo

At the preliminary hearing, Justice Govindaraj called upon the learned Additional Government Advocate to obtain instructions and make submissions on whether the petitioner would be permitted to carry out pujas in terms of the 2016 order.

Significantly, the government's response at hearing did not revive the vitiligo objection. Instead, the AGA contended that Anil Kumar was not personally performing the pujas but had deputed one Mr. Shankar Jois, described as a relative of the petitioner, to do so. The AGA argued that a hereditary right could not be delegated to a third party in this manner, and that Anil Kumar's request could not be considered on that basis.

The court recorded that the right of the petitioner to perform pujas was not in dispute. The sole issue placed before the court at the hearing was the question of delegation.

The Court's Reasoning on Vitiligo and Article 14

Justice Govindaraj addressed the vitiligo question squarely, even though the government had not pressed it at the hearing, because it was the stated ground for the temple authority's fresh interference and formed the basis of the reliefs sought.

The court noted that both the medical authorities and the Agama Pandits had categorically opined that vitiligo neither constitutes a disqualification nor operates as a prohibition for the performance of pujas. The medical certificate on record established that the condition is not contagious. The Agama Pandits had confirmed there was no scriptural interdiction against a person with vitiligo discharging the duties of a Sannidhi Paricharaka.

Against that backdrop, the court invoked Article 14 of the Constitution. It observed that the constitutional mandate under Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and prohibits discrimination founded on irrational, unreasonable or extraneous considerations. Any classification by the State or its instrumentalities must rest on an intelligible differentia having a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. In the court's view, “mere physical appearance or the existence of a non-contagious medical condition” which neither impairs the discharge of duties nor renders a person incapable of performing the functions of the office cannot constitute a valid basis for differential treatment.

The court went further, holding that stigmatisation or exclusion of a person solely on account of vitiligo — when expert medical opinion establishes non-contagiousness and no religious prohibition exists — amounts to discrimination and is arbitrary. Such exclusion, it held, would offend not only Article 14 but also the constitutional values of dignity, inclusiveness and equal opportunity. The respondents were therefore not entitled to rely on the petitioner's medical condition as a ground to deprive him of his hereditary rights or to prevent him from performing the pujas.

Balancing the Delegation Issue

On the delegation question, the court accepted the AGA's position in part. It agreed that the petitioner himself is required to perform the pujas and cannot simply appoint a delegate as a matter of right. However, the court added a practical qualification: pujas are required to be performed on a daily basis and situations beyond the petitioner's control may arise that prevent him from personally performing them, making the appointment of a substitute necessary in those circumstances.

The court therefore held that the respondents are free to impose reasonable conditions on the performance of pujas by the petitioner, including stipulating the circumstances under which a substitute may be engaged and prescribing an upper limit on the number of days for which substitution may be permitted. What they cannot do is treat delegation itself as a ground to deny the petitioner his right to perform pujas altogether.

Order

The High Court allowed Writ Petition No. 19727 of 2026. A writ of mandamus was issued directing Respondent No. 2, the Executive Officer of the Chamundeshwari Temple, to abide by the order passed by Respondent No. 3, the Deputy Commissioner, on 21 June 2016, and to permit the petitioner to carry out the necessary pujas in terms of that order without any interference. The Executive Officer was directed to impose necessary conditions regarding the number of days on which a delegate may perform the puja on the petitioner's behalf.