The Karnataka High Court has held that a committee constituted by a court under Section 92 CPC scheme to oversee management of a temple or charitable, religious trust would "prima facie" continue to operate unless the scheme is altered or modified in terms under the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions & Charitable Endowments Act (HRICE).

In doing so the court stayed a single judge's order which quashed a trial court decision constituting a committee to oversee management of Shree Malatesh (Mailarling) temple. The court said so after observing that the HRICE made no reference to repeal the court sanctioned Scheme or inapplicability of Section 92 CPC.

Section 92 CPC states that in case there is any alleged breach of trust created for public charitable or religious nature, or where court's direction is deemed necessary for administration of such trust, the Advocate-General or two or more persons having an interest in the trust after obtaining Court's leave, may institute a suit in the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction or in any other Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the trust is situate.

The Division Bench of Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav and Justice Hema Kulkarni sitting at Dharwad said that admittedly the temple was governed by a Scheme framed in O.S.No.5/1906 under Section 92 CPC, was settled on 25.02.1935. Under this Scheme, a Committee of Management was appointed by District and Sessions Judge for administration of the Temple which continued till 2025.

"The Committee in control of the Temple till the impugned order passed by the Government was the Committee appointed by the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad in terms of the Scheme under Section 92 of the CPC, 1908 which is in the nature of bye-laws formulated as per the Scheme. For the present, taking note of the contentions raised, it would be appropriate that Committee appointed by the Prl. District Judge under the Scheme framed under Section 92 of the CPC, 1908 be continued till the present appeal is disposed of.

There is substantial force in the argument of Sri Shailesh Madiyal that the repeal Clause under Section 78 of HRICE Act makes no reference to repeal of Scheme or inapplicability of Section 92 of CPC...Third Proviso to Section 25 of HRICE Act provides for Committee of Management constituted under the repealed Act would cease to hold office from the date of commencement of the HRICE Act and as pointed out by learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Temple, the repeal under Section 78 of HRICE Act does not refer to repeal of Scheme under Section 92 of CPC, 1908. If Committee is constituted under a Scheme under Section 92 of CPC, 1908 as in the present case and has been in force, prima facie, unless such Scheme is altered or modified in terms of Section 25(B)(4) of HRICE Act, the Committee under the existing Scheme under Section 92 of CPC, 1908 would continue”, the court clarified.

Furthermore, the Bench recorded that while the power to alter applicable existing Schemes of Management is not contested at the present stage, in the absence of any order by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 25(B)(4) of the HRICE Act altering an existing Scheme, such existing scheme would continue.

“…While the power to alter applicable existing Scheme of Management is not contested at the present stage of the proceedings, in the absence of any order by the Deputy Commissioner altering an existing Scheme, it could be stated that the existing Scheme is to continue… If Committee is constituted under a Scheme under Section 92 of CPC, 1908 as in the present case and has been in force, prima facie, unless such Scheme is altered or modified in terms of Section 25(B)(4) of HRICE Act, the Committee under the existing Scheme under Section 92 of CPC, 1908 would continue.”, the court noted in the order about its prima facie inferences.

The appeal from the single judge bench order was preferred by the Temple Committee, challenging the order dated July 9, 2026 by the single judge bench. Under the old Scheme, the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, acts as the administrative head with supervisory control over the Managing Committee of the Temple.

The court, hence, concluded that the Deputy Commissioner has not yet passed any order under Section 25(B)(4) of the Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 modifying the court framed scheme governing the Temple. Therefore, prima facie, the existing Scheme under Section 92 of CPC would continue, the court said.

“…The notification of the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad inviting applications to constitute a fresh Committee at Annexure-'D' is permitted to be acted upon. It is clarified that the action taken pursuant to notification dated 27.06.2025 to constitute a committee would be subject to orders to be passed in the present appeal”, the court directed.

Hence, the Court directed that the Committee appointed by the trial court under the Section 92 CPC scheme will continue till the appeal is disposed of.

To recap, the notification issued by the District & Sessions Judge for instituting a fresh managing committee for the temple in June 2025 was challenged by a devotee who contended the District Judge ceased to have such authority after Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments (HRICE) Act, 1997 came into force. Further, it was argued by the devotee that the temple, being notified under Section 23 of the HRICE Act, must be governed by the Act's provisions alone.

Earlier in July 9, 2026, the single judge bench had partly allowed the petition and quashed the notification dated June 27, 2025, holding that the temple is a notified institution under Section 23 of the HRICE Act and Section 25 applies for the constitution of a management committee.

Notably Supreme Court's Nine-Judge Bench in Sabarimala (Kantaru rajeevaru v. Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors) has reserved its verdict relating to essential religious practices as well as the extent of interference in religious matters, including determination of principles that would be applicable to the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments (HRICE) Act, 1997

Case Title: Shree Malatesh (Mailarling) Temple Committee v. State of Karnataka & Ors.

Case No: Writ Appeal No. 100478/2026

Click Here To Read/Download Order