Summary
The Supreme Court disposed of the Mahakaleshwar temple appeal with preventive-conservation directions to protect the Jyotirlingam and historic premises. It required the Temple Committee to implement its preservation resolutions, address expert recommendations, improve water quality, cleanliness, drainage and heritage management, and prevent damaging offerings and rubbing. The Court expressly left religious rituals to the Committee and religious experts. It declined interference with the High Court judgment on merits and required a January 2019 expert revisit and report.
Issues
- How the Jyotirlingam and historic temple should be preserved without judicial prescription of religious rituals.
- What conservation and management steps the Temple Committee should implement.
- Whether the challenged High Court decision warranted interference on merits.
Provisions considered
- Article 51A(a), (e), (f) and (j), Constitution of IndiaThe Court referred to duties of constitutional respect, harmony, preservation of composite cultural heritage and excellence when explaining the responsibility to protect the ancient temple and deity. These duties supported conservation rather than judicial specification of worship rituals. (¶¶ 9, 11, 14, 15, 43, 44)
Held
- The extensive ASI and GSI report documented deterioration and recommended preventive conservation. The Committee had to consider the recommendations and implement suitable remedial measures, including water pH of 6.8–7.2, appropriate cleaning, ambient temperature of 17–20 degrees Celsius and minimisation of damaging offerings. (¶¶ 23, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35)
- The Temple Committee’s own resolutions addressed regulated water and offering quantities, cleaning, moisture control, crowd management and repairs. Expert comments were to be considered and implemented in the best possible manner. The Court distinguished those Committee decisions from earlier media claims that the Court itself had prescribed ritual quantities. (¶¶ 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 37, 40, 52)
- Waste disposal and drainage had to prevent contamination of Kotiteerath Pond. The Committee was to consider measures avoiding rubbing of offerings on the Lingam and implement its construction and preservation resolutions in stages within one year. (¶¶ 36, 41, 42)
- Preservation had to respect the temple’s originality and antiquity. A safety plan for the structure and devotees during Nagpanchmi was to be prepared within two months, and a heritage cell established promptly for conservation of old temples and structures. (¶¶ 38, 39)
- Religious experts and the Temple Committee were to determine rituals, ceremonies and the appropriate manner and quantity of ritual materials, including bhang, consistently with preventing damage. The Court expressly disclaimed prescribing or restraining temple religious practices and reiterated its prohibition on misrepresenting its orders. (¶¶ 29, 30, 43, 44, 46, 47, 52)
- The Committee and stakeholders were to plan for pure, unadulterated offering materials, improved gaushalas and kitchen, and possible temple self-sufficiency in milk-based materials. Until such arrangements existed, only pure materials were to be offered. (¶¶ 45, 48, 49)
- No interference with the Division Bench’s merits decision was warranted. The constituted ASI and GSI teams were directed to revisit in January 2019 and report on the Lingam’s condition and implementation of improvements; the original combined report was to remain preserved on record. (¶¶ 50, 51, 52, 53)
Result
Appeal disposed of with preservation and implementation directions; High Court merits decision left undisturbed. ASI and GSI teams to revisit in January 2019 and report. Religious rituals left to the Temple Committee and religious experts, subject to protection of the Lingam.