A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The present judgment arises from the Supreme Court’s continued supervisory jurisdiction in matters concerning the preservation of religious and cultural heritage, specifically addressing the progressive erosion of the Jyotirlinga at Shri Mahakaleshwar Temple, Ujjain. The case reflects the Court’s constitutional responsibility to balance religious practices, heritage conservation, and scientific preservation. Acting upon earlier directions issued in Sarika v. Administrator, Shri Mahakaleshwar Mandir Committee [2018] 4 SCR 634, the Court examined compliance reports submitted by an Expert Committee comprising officials from the Archaeological Survey of India and Geological Survey of India, alongside responses from the Temple Management Committee and infrastructural proposals by Ujjain Smart City Limited.

The judgment recognises that the erosion of the Shivalinga is an ongoing and irreversible process caused by chemical reactions, mechanical abrasion, and unregulated religious offerings. The Court identifies high pH levels during Bhasma Aarti, use of abrasive ornaments, rubbing by devotees, and modern structural alterations as direct contributors to deterioration. Emphasis is placed on scientific monitoring, annual expert inspections, strict regulation of rituals, and restoration of original architectural elements.

Significantly, the Court issues detailed mandatory directions governing ritual conduct, structural conservation, funding responsibilities, removal of encroachments, and preservation of ancillary heritage structures like Chandranageshwar Temple. The judgment underscores that religious freedom under Article 25 is subject to public order, morality, health, and heritage protection. The ruling thus serves as a landmark precedent on judicial intervention in heritage conservation, blending constitutional values, administrative accountability, and environmental jurisprudence.

Keywords: Religious heritage, Jyotirlinga preservation, erosion of Shivalinga, judicial monitoring, scientific conservation, temple administration

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The judgment forms part of a continuing mandamus exercised by the Supreme Court in matters concerning protection of ancient religious monuments, rooted in constitutional obligations under Article 49. The litigation originated from concerns raised regarding irreparable damage to the Jyotirlinga at Shri Mahakaleshwar Temple, one of the twelve sacred Jyotirlingas in India. Earlier judicial intervention in 2018 had led to the constitution of an Expert Committee comprising scientists from ASI and GSI to assess deterioration and recommend remedial measures.

Despite prior directions, subsequent inspections revealed that erosion had continued, indicating inadequate compliance. The Court noted that heritage degradation is not a speculative threat but a demonstrable scientific reality, supported by photographic evidence and expert findings. The judgment situates itself within a broader constitutional narrative that religious autonomy does not permit destruction of heritage, especially when such heritage constitutes national patrimony.

The background also reflects increasing judicial reliance on scientific expertise in adjudicating complex heritage issues. The Court acknowledges that temple management alone cannot address such deterioration without institutional support, technical assessment, and regulatory oversight. The case thus stands at the intersection of religious freedom, scientific conservation, and state accountability, reinforcing the Supreme Court’s role as a constitutional sentinel.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The litigation concerns the Shivalinga housed in the Garbh Griha of Shri Mahakaleshwar Temple, Ujjain, which was found to be undergoing continuous erosion. An Expert Committee appointed by the Supreme Court conducted inspections, with its report dated 19 January 2019 concluding that erosion was ongoing and progressive. The report highlighted chemical erosion caused by high alkaline substances, mechanical abrasion from heavy ornaments, and physical rubbing by devotees as key causes.

Photographic evidence from July 2020 showed visible patches of erosion, particularly near the deity of Shri Kartikeyan. The Committee recorded that the pH value during Bhasma Aarti was as high as 10.51, which chemically reacts with the cryptocrystalline siliceous material of the Lingam. Additionally, sanitation deficiencies, drainage issues, and unregulated offerings of curd, honey, ghee, and Panchamrita were found to aggravate deterioration.

The Temple Committee submitted an Action Taken Report stating that cloth covering during rituals, RO water cleaning, and restricted entry had been implemented. However, expert findings contradicted the sufficiency of these measures. The Chandranageshwar Temple within the premises was also reported to be structurally unstable. Further, modern constructions, eyesore paintings, and encroachments within 500 metres of the temple premises were identified as violations of heritage norms.

In response, the Court examined reports from Ujjain Smart City Limited, which proposed the Mahakaal Rudrasagar Integrated Development Approach. The need for structural assessment by CBRI, Roorkee was also considered, including financial requirements to be borne by the Union Government.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether continued religious practices causing erosion of the Shivalinga violate constitutional obligations to preserve heritage?
ii. Whether the Supreme Court can regulate temple rituals to prevent irreversible damage to religious monuments?
iii. Whether expert scientific findings warrant mandatory judicial directions overriding customary practices?
iv. Whether State and Central Governments bear financial responsibility for heritage conservation?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the petitioner submitted that irreversible damage to the Jyotirlinga constitutes a violation of constitutional heritage obligations. It was argued that unregulated rituals, chemical reactions from offerings, and mechanical abrasion were causing measurable deterioration. Reliance was placed on expert scientific reports, asserting that religious sentiment cannot justify destruction of national heritage. The petitioner emphasized that earlier directions had not been fully implemented, necessitating stricter judicial supervision.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the respondent Temple Committee submitted that preventive measures had already been initiated, including restricted access, ritual regulation, and restoration work. It was argued that traditional rituals must continue, though with safeguards. The State supported infrastructural development through Smart City projects and sought time for compliance. The Union Government agreed to bear costs for CBRI assessment.

H) JUDGMENT 

The Supreme Court held that erosion of the Shivalinga is a continuing process requiring immediate and sustained intervention. The Court accepted the Expert Committee’s findings in entirety, noting that scientific evidence cannot be subordinated to ritual convenience. It reaffirmed that Article 25 rights are subject to health and heritage preservation.

The Court issued thirteen exhaustive directions, including mandatory expert inspections, annual surveys, prohibition on rubbing of the Lingam, regulation of offerings, reduction of ornament weight, video recording of rituals, purification of water, and financial responsibility of governments. It ordered removal of modern constructions, restoration of original architecture, elimination of encroachments, and preservation of Chandranageshwar Temple.

The judgment reflects a doctrine of constitutional trusteeship, where temple authorities act as custodians rather than owners of heritage. Judicial monitoring was continued, with compliance reports mandated.

a) RATIO DECIDENDI

The ratio rests on the principle that religious freedom does not extend to practices causing irreversible damage to heritage. The Court held that scientific conservation overrides customary practices when heritage is endangered. Judicial intervention is justified under Articles 49 and 142 to protect monuments of national importance.

b) OBITER DICTA

The Court observed that commercialization of religious practices often leads to neglect of rituals and heritage. It emphasized that customary Poojaries must be involved in decision-making to preserve ritual sanctity while ensuring conservation.

c) GUIDELINES

i. Annual expert inspections mandatory.
ii. Prohibition on physical contact with the Shivalinga by devotees.
iii. Regulation of offerings and ritual substances.
iv. Removal of modern alterations and encroachments.
v. Government-funded structural assessments and repairs.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment reinforces the Supreme Court’s role as guardian of cultural heritage. It establishes that faith must coexist with scientific responsibility. By integrating expert knowledge with constitutional mandates, the Court provides a replicable model for heritage protection across India. The ruling strengthens jurisprudence on regulated religious freedom and sets a precedent for judicially enforced conservation ethics.

J) REFERENCES

a) Important Cases Referred

i. Sarika v. Administrator, Shri Mahakaleshwar Mandir Committee, Ujjain (M.P.) & Ors., [2018] 4 SCR 634
ii. Sarika v. Administrator, Shri Mahakaleshwar Mandir Committee, Ujjain (M.P.) & Ors., [2020] 9 SCR 303

b) Important Statutes Referred

i. Constitution of India, Articles 25, 26, 49