The petitioners’ submissions were ‘tainted’ by a ‘fishing inquiry’, and allegations of defilement of idols due to use of chemicals is ‘misplaced apprehension’, the high court said. (File photo)The Bombay High Court recently allowed the Shri Vitthal Rukmini Mandir Samiti to proceed with chemical coating of the Lord Vitthal and Goddess Rukmini idols at Pandharpur to prevent further erosion, rejecting devotees’ plea that the traditional procedure laid down by shastras should be followed.Justice Shailesh P Brahme observed that the petitioners, who claimed to be devotees and archaks (Hindu temple priests), had not cited any specific norms from the shastras or agamas (ritual texts) to support their plea for following the traditional procedure.“It can be safely inferred that deterioration of the idols is recurring and the respondent-committee is obliged to take care of it. It is a continuous process. No objection to the procedure can be entertained, unless there is scientific foundation,” the August 7 order read.The high court said the submissions of the petitioners were “absurd” and “tainted” by a “fishing inquiry”, adding that “mere allegations of defilement of idols due to use of chemicals is misplaced apprehension”.Traditional method vs chemical coatingThe petitioners, who claimed to be devotees and archaks (Hindu temple priests) of Lord Vitthal and Goddess Rukmini installed in a temple at Pandharpur in Solapur district, objected to the committee’s decision to coat the idol with chemicals to prevent erosion. They sought to restrain the committee from carrying out the chemical coating and insisted that the traditional vajralep method (traditional method of coating for temple walls, idols) be followed. Justice Shailesh P Brahme noted that the temple committee’s decision was not taken on its own, but was based on a report by the deputy superintendent archaeological chemist.The trial court initially granted an interim injunction against the coating on June 22, 2026. The temple committee challenged the order before the appellate court, which reversed it on July 17, 2026. The devotees then approached the Bombay High Court.‘Procedure done earlier’The petitioners, represented by advocates Dnyaneshwari S Utpat and Shantanu Gurav, argued that the committee had no authority under the Pandharpur Temples Act, 1973, to undertake coating of the idols. They submitted that the proposed action was non-transparent, arbitrary and without jurisdiction, and that there was no immediate threat of further deterioration or irreparable loss necessitating the exercise.Story continues below this adAlso Read | Teach boys good conduct, don’t dictate women’s clothes: Delhi High CourtRepresenting the temple committee, Senior Advocate Prasad Dhakephalkar submitted that preserving and protecting the deity and idol was the committee’s statutory duty under the Act. He argued that the petitioners had made vague pleadings and sought an injunction based on a “fishing inquiry.” He also pointed out that the same procedure had been followed previously without objection from the petitioners.Decision based on expert opinion: CourtThe high court noted that the committee’s decision was not taken on its own, but was based on a December 19, 2025 report authored by the deputy superintendent archaeological chemist of Aurangabad.Rejecting the argument that the committee lacked authority under the Pandharpur Temples Act, 1973, to undertake chemical coating, the court held that the committee is a legal body whose powers and duties include preserving and maintaining the idols and deities.The court rejected the trial court’s finding that the idols were in a “good state of conservation” and did not require immediate protective coating, calling the finding “half-hearted and erroneous”. It said the observation that delay would cause no damage was “unfounded.”Story continues below this adAlso Read | RPF constable remarries, Jharkhand High Court orders Rs 30 lakh alimony to first wife“The trial court is not the expert to express such types of opinions,” the court said, noting that the committee had relied on an expert report and a scientific method.The court also held that the committee’s duty to preserve the idols cannot be treated as simply an administrative task “unconcerned with religious sentiments or sanctity of the idols.” It noted that the committee had stated that the same procedure had been followed on four previous occasions, with chemicals used based on expert advice.Richa Sahay is a Legal Correspondent for The Indian Express (Digital), where she focuses on simplifying the complexities of the Indian judicial system. A law postgraduate, she leverages her advanced legal education to bridge the gap between technical court rulings and public understanding, ensuring that readers stay informed about the rapidly evolving legal landscape. Expertise Advanced Legal Education: As a law postgraduate, Richa possesses the academic depth required to interpret intricate statutes and constitutional nuances. Her background allows her to provide more than just summaries; she offers context-driven analysis of how legal changes impact the average citizen. Specialized Beat: She operates at the intersection of law and public policy, focusing on: Judicial Updates: Providing timely reports on orders from the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts. Legal Simplification: Translating dense "legalese" into accessible, engaging narratives without sacrificing factual accuracy. Legislative Changes: Monitoring new bills, amendments, and regulatory shifts that shape Indian society. ... Read More