In order to assuage the apprehensions of a hereditary priest with vitiligo, the Karnataka High Court has on August 19 [Wednesday] appointed two advocates as Court Commissioners to accompany him while performing pooja at the Chamundeshwari Temple in Mysore.

The Court was hearing a petition filed by the priest who alleged that despite a July 1 order ofthe High Court permitting him to perform his duties, the temple authorities were still obstructing him.

The Additional Government Advocate (AGA), however, submitted that there was no restriction on the petitioner performing the pooja and that he could do so even the following day.

The petitioner's counsel nevertheless expressed apprehension that the petitioner would not be permitted to perform the poojas. To address this apprehension, the Court appointed two advocates as Court Commissioners.

In a lighter vein, Justice Govindaraj asked the advocates present in court, “…Which lawyer wants to go to Mysore tomorrow and have a good darshan of Chamundeshwari Temple? Anybody…. They will get free darshan”.

Subsequently, two advocates volunteered to act as Court Commissioners.

The Court recorded: “…Sri Narayana Rao, counsel before this Court, volunteers to be Court Commissioner on Friday, August 21. Shiva Rudhra, learned counsel practising before this Court, volunteers to be a Court Commissioner on August 22, Saturday. In that view of the matter, they are appointed as Court Commissioners on respective dates”

The Court directed the the temple authorities to allow the Court Commissioners to enter the temple, except the sanctum sanctorum, and the court commissioners were asked to submit a report on whether there was any obstruction to the petitioner performing pooja.

The matter has been listed for further hearing on August 24, 2026, at 2:30 PM.

TheHigh Court had earlier directed the Chamundeshwari Temple authorities to permit the 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.

The court had then underscored that no scientific reasons or religious scriptures prevents a person with vitiligo from discharging the duties as the priest.

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, afterwards, 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 court had in its July order 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 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)