Karnataka High Court halts all construction activity at Chamundeshwari Temple premises; pulls up Mysuru Deputy Commissioner for defying its earlier orders

Karnataka High Court halts construction at Chamundeshwari Temple, reprimanding Mysuru DC for violating previous court orders.

Pulling up the Deputy Commissioner (DC) of Mysuru district for carrying out constructions in “blatant disregard” of the undertaking given to the court and its earlier multiple interim orders, the Karnataka High Court has directed the DC to immediately stop all construction activities of whatsoever nature on the Chamundeshwari Temple premises, without any exception.

Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum passed the interim order on a writ petition filed in 2024 by Pramoda Devi Wadiyar, who is a legal descendant of the erstwhile royal family, challenging the Shree Chamundeshwari Kshetra Development Act, 2024. The petitioner had brought to the court’s notice that construction works were carried out, contrary to the court’s earlier orders.

“Any further violation of the interim orders of this court or breach of the undertaking shall be viewed with utmost seriousness and would amount to aggravated contempt, warranting initiation of appropriate proceedings against the DC in accordance with law,” the Court said while pointing out that despite clear interim orders dating back to October 2024, the DC proceeded with large-scale, permanent construction works.

The legal battle began on October 15, 2024, when the court recorded the State’s assurance that no movable or immovable temple property would be disposed of, and that any action under the relevant Act of 2024 would require “prior leave of this Court”. On January 14, 2026, the State gave a categorical undertaking that “no construction activities, which are of permanent nature will be done”. This undertaking was reiterated on February 17, 2026, with the court cautioning that any deviation would invite “strict action”.

Meanwhile, the photographs and materials placed before the court revealed that construction of “considerable magnitude” had continued, and the DC strangely stated in a recent affidavit that the earlier undertaking cannot be sustained in view of subsequent developments and release of funds worth ₹47 crore by the Union government.

However, Justice Magadum rejected the DC’s contentions, terming these as “mischievous and wholly untenable”, while observing, “Orders passed by constitutional courts are not advisory in nature but are binding mandates that carry with them an obligation of strict compliance by all instrumentalities of the State. The executive cannot arrogate to itself the discretion to disregard or dilute judicial orders on the pretext of administrative exigencies or subsequent financial allocations.”