New Delhi, May 27 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice on a petition filed by Shri Vidyadas Babaji, a hereditary priest of the Ramanandi Sampradaya, challenging the Karnataka High Court’s dismissal of his contempt plea against government officials.
The plea alleges non-compliance with judicial directions related to the Sri Anjaneya Temple located on Anjanadri Hills in Koppal district, Karnataka.
A Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Datta directed that, in the meantime, the authorities must fully comply with the High Court’s earlier interim orders.
The Court further directed that the petitioner shall be allowed to continue performing his priestly duties and reside in a single room at the temple premises with all previously provided basic facilities. The Court warned that any failure to comply would be treated seriously.
The dispute stems from an interim order dated February 14, 2023, issued by the Karnataka High Court, which protected Shri Vidyadas Babaji’s rights to continue worship and stay within the temple premises.
The petitioner claims that despite this order, officials removed him from service and installed another priest on March 16, 2025.
Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain submitted that the Ramanandi Sampradaya had been managing and performing worship at the temple for over 120 years. He alleged that the temple was unlawfully taken over by the government in 2018 in violation of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997.
According to the petition, the District Collector of Koppal, through an order dated July 18, 2018, directed the takeover of the temple's management and removed Shri Vidyadas Babaji from his role as Chief Archaka (priest).
The takeover was challenged before the High Court, which granted interim protection and later directed that the petitioner continue his role until further orders.
Despite this, the petitioner alleges that government officials and their agents forcibly prevented him from performing rituals, cut off electricity to his quarters, and attempted to frame him by planting illegal substances. The petitioner also claimed he was threatened and verbally abused when he questioned the interference.
A legal notice was reportedly issued to the authorities, but no response was received. On April 9, 2025, the Karnataka High Court dismissed the contempt petition, holding that the petitioner had not made out a prima facie case due to the absence of supporting documents such as FIRs or affidavits.
Challenging this dismissal in the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that the High Court applied an unreasonably high standard of proof at the initial stage and failed to acknowledge ongoing violations of his fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 25 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has now sought responses from the concerned parties. The matter will be heard further in due course.
UNI SNG RN