The Bombay High Court has stayed the Joint Charity Commissioner’s order affecting worship arrangements at Pune’s historic Kali Jogeshwari Temple, allowing the existing system of पूजा and abhishek to continue until the final decision in the appeal.
Justice Aarti Sathe observed that there had been no material change in circumstances since 2023 to justify altering the existing arrangement. The court also said that the first appeal raised issues requiring consideration and stayed the challenged order until the appeal is finally decided.
Under the interim arrangement continued by the court, the Shri Devdeveshwar Sansthan from Parvati and Kothrud may place a signboard and donation box within the temple premises. However, it cannot appoint any person to perform worship or abhishek. Trustees and devotees may continue to enter the temple and offer prayers. Religious rituals will be conducted according to the interim directions currently in force.
The order does not finally decide the competing claims over management of the temple or the Bhide family’s alleged hereditary right to perform religious ceremonies. Those issues remain before the court in the appeal.
According to the written arguments reported by Civic Mirror – Pune, the Bhide family claims that it has performed puja, archana, naivedya and abhishek at the temple for about 120 years, across five generations. The family has argued that its relationship with the temple predates the establishment of the institution and that the traditional role cannot be ended without a proper judicial determination of the relevant claims.
The family has also challenged the Shri Devdeveshwar Sansthan’s position that the temple is owned by the institution. Its arguments refer to a scheme prepared on 16 March 1971 and contend that Kali Jogeshwari Temple does not appear in Schedules A, B or C, which relate to the institution’s properties and specified temples. The family says the temple is listed at number 20 in Schedule D, which records ancient temples receiving financial grants, and argues that receiving a grant does not by itself establish ownership or an exclusive right to conduct religious rituals.
The Bhide family’s submissions further state that the temple was established around 1825, while the institution was formed in 1952. The family has relied on historical documents, including municipal and property-tax records dating from 1937, as well as records associated with the Inam Commission, to support its claim of a long-standing connection with the temple.
The institution, however, has maintained that the temple belongs to it and that the Bhide family had been appointed to provide religious services. The dispute arose in proceedings under Section 41E of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. The institution had sought directions preventing the family from interfering in administration, appointing priests and employees, organising religious ceremonies and collecting donations.
The interim order keeps the immediate arrangements unchanged while the court examines the competing claims. The institution may continue to maintain a signboard and donation box at the temple, but no alternative person may be appointed to perform puja or abhishek until the appeal is decided.
