A Maharashtra court on Monday (22nd June) passed an interim order restraining the Shri Vitthal-Rukmini Temple committee from applying a protective chemical coating on the vigrahas (idols) of Shri Vitthal and Goddess Rukmini. Joint Civil Judge SS Raul, Junior Division, Pandharpur, passed a temporary injunction on 22 June 2026, observing that the application of chemicals on the murtis placed in Shri Vitthal Rukmini Temple in Pandharpur, Maharashtra, in the name of restoration would hurt the sentiments of devotees, who want the restoration process to comply with the Shastras.
“When devotees consider that god himself resides in the idol, such use of chemicals upon it adversely affects the sentiments of devotees.” The court examined the report of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) on the status of the idols and noted that the idols showed no signs of deterioration and that any delay in restoration would cause no damage.
The court rejected the temple administration’s claim that private individuals have no right to file a suit to stop the restoration process, as the temple administration is governed by the Pandharpur Temple Act. The court held that the plaintiffs are devotees and that any act affecting the idols would affect the sentiments of devotees.
Why the opposition
The plaintiff, representing the Maharashtra Mandir Mahasangh, which works for the protection of Hindu Temples, had approached the court seeking to stop the temple administration from carrying out a proposed restoration of the Shri Vitthal murti, scheduled for June 23–24, 2026. The restoration process would involve coating the murti with epoxy resin as suggested by the Department of Archaeology. The restoration process was last carried out in 2020, despite opposition. At that time, it was assured to the people opposing the process that no restoration would be carried out for the next 10 years. However, the Department of Archaeology has again suggested the process, within 6 years of the last restoration.
The procedure involves cleaning the idols with chemicals, followed by filling the gaps or holes in the murti using stone powder combined with binding agents. The plaintiff has opposed the restoration of the murti using chemicals and has advocated for the traditional method of restoring the murti using ‘Vajralep’ as prescribed in the Shashtras.
Temple administration is merely a custodian of the temple: Court
The defendants opposed the pleadings of the plaintiffs, claiming that the temple administration is governed by the Pandharpur Temple Act and therefore, the plaintiffs have no locus standi in the case. After examining the question of locus standi, the court rejected the defendants’ argument that the plaintiff had no right to file the present suit. The court also noted that the temple committee itself treated the plaintiffs as stakeholders by inviting them to a meeting of stakeholders held before taking the final decision regarding the restoration process.
The court further said that the temple administration is merely a custodian of the temple, and it exists for the smooth functioning of the temple. It added that the temple administration cannot claim any sovereignty or ownership over the temple idols. The court acknowledged the plaintiff’s right to file the present suit, saying that plaintiffs are devotees and any act affecting the idols is the concern of all devotees.
“The temple being a religious place, religious sentiments of all the devotees must be taken into consideration. The plaintiffs, being one of the devotees, whose religious sentiments have been affected by the proposed act of the defendant, are the persons having a right existing in their favour to file the present suit. At the primary stage, the objection raised by the defendant that the plaintiffs do not have locus-standi is not tenable,” the court asserted.
Restoration of idols should conform to the Shastras: Court
The plaintiff had submitted before the court that the chemicals to be used in the proposed restoration are prohibited in the Shastras. He argued that Vajralep prepared using Ayurvedic and natural herbs should be applied on the idols for restoration after the prescribed ritual. The plaintiff said that the objections regarding the proposed restoration were not taken into account by the defendants, who made the decision regarding restoration ex parte.
In light of precedents on the protection and restoration of temple idols, the court said that any departure from the rules prescribed in the Agamas (Shastras) relating to worship and purificatory ceremonies for restoring the sanctity of the shrine results in the defiling of the idols.
The court noted the defendant failed to prove that the proposed restoration would conform to the Shastras. “Any departure from such procedure will result in defilement of the idol itself. This will strongly affect the religious sentiment of devotees, including plaintiffs. Thus, the plaintiff’s right in respect of the idol of having religious sentiment and their faith that the divine spirit rests in the idol, is going to be affected by the proposed act of the defendant. Thus, plaintiffs have proved the existence of a right in their favour which requires adjudication on merit. Thus, they have a prima facie case established in their favour,” the court stated.
The court issued the temporary injunction, observing that if the injunction is refused, the sentiments of plaintiffs and other devotees will be affected.
