Pandharpur temple idols: Bombay High Court permits chemical coating to check erosion

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 coating

The 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.

Representing 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: Court

The 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.”

“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.