TempleRuling – High Court Orders Fresh Review in Priests’ Foreign Travel Dispute

TempleRuling –  A significant legal development has emerged regarding the implementation of guidelines related to temple priests who have undertaken foreign travel. A division bench of the High Court has put on hold an earlier order issued by a single judge that directed authorities to enforce certain restrictions concerning the performance of rituals inside temple sanctums.

The bench, comprising Chief Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Ninala Jayasurya, observed that the matter required a more detailed examination before any final conclusions could be reached. Consequently, the judges decided that the earlier ruling should not remain in force until all relevant legal and factual aspects are properly considered.

Background of the Dispute

The case stems from a circular issued by the Endowments Department in 2010 along with directions reportedly issued in December 2024 by the Jagadguru of Sringeri Sharada Peetham, Sri Sri Sri Mahatirtha Bharati Swami. These guidelines were interpreted by some as placing limitations on priests returning from overseas visits with regard to conducting religious ceremonies within temple sanctums.

Earlier this year, on March 30, a single judge directed officials to implement the guidelines. The order followed concerns that certain temple priests who had travelled abroad were continuing to perform rituals despite the restrictions referred to in the petition.

Division Bench Finds Missing Facts

During the appeal proceedings, the division bench noted that several important facts had not been presented before the single judge when the matter was originally heard. According to the court, the absence of crucial information affected the legal assessment of the case.

The judges stated that a comprehensive review was necessary and that the earlier order could not be sustained without considering all relevant circumstances. As a result, the bench remitted the matter back to the single judge for a fresh hearing and detailed adjudication.

Petition Raised Concerns Over Ritual Practices

The original petition was filed by DSSS Subrahmanyam Somayaji, who serves as a Sri Chakra Navavarana Archana reciter at the Sri Durga Malleswara Swamyvarla Devasthanam temple. In his plea, he alleged that certain chief priests who had undertaken foreign travel were still being permitted to perform rituals within the sanctum area of temples.

The petition sought implementation of the existing guidelines and requested action from the authorities responsible for temple administration.

Appellant Challenges Application of Circular

The appeal was filed by G Srinivasacharyulu, the chief priest of the Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple at Simhachalam. Representing the appellant, legal counsel argued that Srinivasacharyulu had travelled to the United States between 2001 and 2006 after obtaining prior approval from the Endowments Commissioner.

The court was informed that the priest had proceeded abroad while on sanctioned leave without pay and that his travel took place years before the issuance of the 2010 circular. Therefore, the counsel contended that the circular could not be applied retrospectively to conduct that occurred before the guideline came into existence.

Pending Legal Challenge Also Considered

During arguments, the appellant’s counsel further informed the court that a separate writ petition challenging the validity of the 2010 circular is already pending before the High Court. The existence of that challenge was presented as another reason why the matter required careful judicial examination before enforcement measures could be directed.

After considering the submissions, the division bench accepted the arguments that additional legal questions remained unresolved. The judges subsequently set aside the earlier order and directed that the matter be heard afresh by the single judge after evaluating all facts, records and legal issues in detail.

The latest ruling means the dispute remains open for further consideration, with the High Court expected to revisit the matter during the renewed proceedings.