The Karnataka High Court has reaffirmed that hereditary temple rights cannot be denied on the basis of a non-contagious medical condition like vitiligo, holding that such exclusion violates constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination. The judgment underscores that arbitrary disqualification based on physical appearance, without impairment of duty, offends Article 14 of the Constitution.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Sri N. Anil Kumar, inherited the hereditary post of Sannidhi Paricharaka at the Chamundeshwari Temple, Chamundi Hills, Mysuru, through a registered Will dated 17.10.2015 executed by his uncle. Following his uncle’s death on 17.01.2016, the petitioner sought transfer of the hereditary rights, which was granted by the Deputy Commissioner (3rd respondent) via order dated 21.06.2016. The petitioner commenced discharging his duties but faced objections from devotees due to his vitiligo condition.
Key Facts
- 17.10.2015: Petitioner’s uncle executed a registered Will bequeathing the hereditary post of Sannidhi Paricharaka to the petitioner.
- 17.01.2016: Death of the petitioner’s uncle.
- 21.06.2016: Deputy Commissioner (3rd respondent) transferred the hereditary rights to the petitioner via order No. DVS-1/Sibbandi/CR16/16-17.
- 01.02.2017: Medical authority certified that the petitioner’s vitiligo was non-contagious.
- 20.12.2017: Agama Pandits submitted a report stating that religious texts did not prohibit a person with vitiligo from performing pujas.
- 16.06.2026: Petitioner submitted a representation to the 2nd respondent seeking permission to perform pujas, as his turn was to commence on 01.07.2026.
- 01.07.2026: Petitioner filed the present writ petition after his representation went unanswered.
Procedural History
- 21.06.2016: Deputy Commissioner passed order transferring hereditary rights to the petitioner.
- 01.02.2017: Medical certificate issued confirming non-contagious nature of vitiligo.
- 20.12.2017: Agama Pandits’ report submitted, permitting the petitioner to perform pujas.
- 16.06.2026: Petitioner submitted representation to the 2nd respondent.
- 01.07.2026: Writ Petition No. 19727 of 2026 filed before the Karnataka High Court.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner:
- The petitioner contended that his hereditary rights were legally transferred and that his vitiligo condition was non-contagious and did not impair his ability to perform pujas.
- He relied on the medical certificate and the Agama Pandits’ report to argue that there was no religious or medical basis for disqualification.
- He sought permission to perform pujas for two months annually, as per the hereditary rights, and challenged the respondents’ interference.
For the Respondents:
- The respondents argued that the petitioner was not personally performing the pujas but had deputed a relative, Mr. Shankar Jois, to do so.
- They contended that the petitioner could not delegate his hereditary duties to a third party and, therefore, could not claim the right to perform pujas.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- A writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to permit him to perform hereditary duties as Sannidhi Paricharaka for two months annually, in accordance with the orders dated 21.06.2016 and 20.12.2017.
- A writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from interfering with his performance of duties on the ground of his vitiligo condition.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the petitioner’s hereditary right to perform temple duties could be denied on the basis of his vitiligo condition, which was certified as non-contagious and not prohibited by religious texts, and whether the respondents could impose restrictions on his ability to delegate duties in exigent circumstances.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
- The petitioner argued that his hereditary rights were legally transferred and that his vitiligo condition did not disqualify him from performing pujas.
- He relied on Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality and prohibits arbitrary discrimination.
- He contended that the medical certificate and Agama Pandits’ report conclusively established that his condition was neither contagious nor religiously prohibited.
For the Respondents
- The respondents contended that the petitioner was not personally performing the pujas and had delegated his duties to a third party.
- They argued that the hereditary right to perform pujas was personal and could not be delegated without authorization.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the constitutional and legal framework governing the petitioner’s rights and the respondents’ objections:
-
Hereditary Rights and Constitutional Equality: The Court observed that the petitioner’s hereditary rights were legally transferred via the Deputy Commissioner’s order dated 21.06.2016. It emphasized that Article 14 of the Constitution prohibits arbitrary discrimination and mandates that State action must rest on intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved. The Court held that mere physical appearance or a non-contagious medical condition, which does not impair the discharge of duties, cannot constitute a valid basis for differential treatment.
"Any classification sought to be made by the State or its instrumentalities must rest upon an intelligible differentia having a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. Mere physical appearance or the existence of a non-contagious medical condition, which neither impairs the discharge of duties nor renders an individual incapable of performing the functions attached to the office, cannot constitute a valid basis for differential treatment."
-
Medical and Religious Opinions: The Court noted that both the medical authority and the Agama Pandits had categorically opined that vitiligo was non-contagious and did not prohibit the petitioner from performing pujas. The medical certificate dated 01.02.2017 and the Agama Pandits’ report dated 20.12.2017 were relied upon to reject the respondents’ objections.
-
Delegation of Duties: While the Court agreed that the petitioner was required to perform the pujas personally, it acknowledged that situations beyond his control might necessitate delegation. The Court held that the respondents could impose reasonable conditions regarding substitution, such as prescribing an upper limit on the number of days for which a delegate could perform pujas. However, delegation alone could not be a ground to deny the petitioner his hereditary rights.
The Verdict
The Court allowed the writ petition and issued the following directions:
- A writ of mandamus was issued directing the 2nd respondent to abide by the order dated 21.06.2016 passed by the 3rd respondent and permit the petitioner to perform the pujas without interference.
- The respondents were permitted to impose reasonable conditions regarding the delegation of duties, including stipulating the circumstances under which a substitute could be engaged and prescribing an upper limit on the number of days for substitution.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Non-Contagious Conditions Cannot Disqualify Hereditary Rights
- The judgment reinforces that hereditary rights, particularly those attached to religious or traditional posts, cannot be denied on the basis of non-contagious medical conditions like vitiligo.
- Public authorities and religious institutions must ensure that their actions comply with Article 14 of the Constitution, which prohibits arbitrary discrimination.
Delegation of Duties Must Be Reasonably Regulated
- While hereditary rights are personal, the Court recognized that exigent circumstances may necessitate delegation. However, such delegation must be regulated by reasonable conditions, such as limiting the duration or specifying the circumstances under which a substitute can perform duties.
- Practitioners can argue for flexibility in delegation where the primary right holder is temporarily unable to perform duties, provided the delegation is not permanent or unregulated.
Expert Opinions Hold Significant Weight
- The Court relied heavily on medical certificates and religious opinions to determine the legitimacy of the petitioner’s claim. In similar cases, parties should ensure that expert opinions are obtained and submitted to counter arbitrary disqualifications.
- This judgment underscores the importance of documentary evidence in establishing the absence of disqualifying factors, whether medical, religious, or otherwise.
