'Can't Stigmatize Over Medical Condition': Karnataka High Court Permits Priest Having Vitiligo To Perform Rituals At Chamundeshwari Temple

The Karnataka High Court has recently directed the Chamundeshwari Temple authorities to permit a hereditary priest suffering from vitiligo to perform his duties, emphasising that stigmatisation based on a non-contagious medical condition amounts to discrimination and violates Article 14 of the Constitution. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 235]

The single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj underscored that no scientific reasons or religious scriptures prevents a person with vitiligo from discharging the duties as the priest.

“…Both the medical authorities as well as the Agama Pandits have categorically opined that vitiligo neither constitutes a disqualification nor operates as a prohibition for the performance of pujas. The medical certificate issued by the competent authority clearly records that the condition suffered by the petitioner is not contagious. The Agama Pandits, upon examination of the relevant religious texts, have further opined that there is no scriptural interdiction preventing a person suffering from vitiligo from discharging the duties of a Sannidhi Paricharaka...In the considered opinion of this Court, therefore, the respondents cannot rely upon the petitioner's medical condition as a ground to deprive him of the hereditary rights and privileges attached to the post or to prevent him from performing the pujas and other religious duties attached thereto”, the court held.

The single judge bench, hence, underscored that temple administration cannot deprive the petitioner-priest of hereditary rights and privileges attached to the post or to prevent him from performing the pujas by citing vitiligo.

“Stigmatisation or exclusion of an individual solely on account of a medical condition such as vitiligo, particularly when expert medical opinion establishes that the condition is non-contagious and when there exists no religious prohibition against such individual performing the duties in question, would amount to discrimination and would be arbitrary. Such exclusion would offend not only Article 14 but also the constitutional values of dignity, inclusiveness and equal opportunity which form the foundation of the constitutional framework”, the court further laid down.

“…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”, the court further said.

The petitioner is the nephew of a previous Sannidhi Paricharaka at the Chamundeshwari Temple at Chamundi Hills, Mysore. Since the post is hereditary, the Ex-Paricharaka executed a registered Will on October 17, 2015, bequeathing the post to the petitioner. After the uncle died in 2016, the Deputy Commissioner of Mysore transferred the rights and privileges attached to the post in favour of the petitioner through another order.

However, according to the petitioner, devotees later complained and objected to the petitioner performing the poojas since he was afflicted with vitiligo. Subsequently, the Medical Certificate from 2017 said that the disease was not contagious. Later, the Agama Pandits also approved the petitioner's right to hold the post since there was no impediment in the scriptures to be a Sannidhi Paricharaka even if he had vitiligo. The petitioner continued to discharge his duties up until recently, backed by the medical report and the Agama Pandits' opinion.

However, recently, the executive officer of the temple allegedly prevented the petitioner from performing pujas, against which the petitioner submitted a representation but to no avail. According to the petitioner, he approached the High Court in a mandamus seeking direction to the temple administration to permit him perform his functions as the Paricharaka.

The AGA for the state, on the other hand, argued that the petitioner had delegated his duties to another relative and hence, he couldn't claim the right and delegate it to a third person.

The single judge bench underscored that there was no further dispute about the right of the petitioner to perform the pujas except the aspect of delegating such rights. Court pointed out that the petitioner is required to perform pujas on a daily basis and extraneous situations may prevent him from personally performing the same.

The court, hence, noted as below in the order:

“…Therefore, it is always open to the respondents to impose such reasonable conditions as may be considered necessary with regard to 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 such substitution may be permitted”,  the single judge bench concluded while allowing the writ petition and holding that delegation alone cannot be a ground to disfavour the petitioner.

The court has permitted the petitioner to conduct the poojas in alignment with the 2016 order of Mysore Deputy Commissioner and issued a direction to that effect to the Temple Administration. At the same time, the court has also allowed the temple administration to impose reasonable restriction on the number of days in which the petitioner can delegate his functions to a substitute.

Case Title: N. Anil Kumar v. State of Karnataka & Ors.

Case No: Writ Petition No. 19727 of 2026 (GM-R/C)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 234

Click Here To Read/Download Order