The Karnataka High Court has set aside the Karnataka government’s order placing Bengaluru’s Gali Anjaneyaswamy Temple on Mysuru Road under the Muzrai Department, cancelling the related appointment of an administrator and directing that control be returned to the temple trust within a week.
Justice C.M. Poonacha, sitting on a single-judge bench, partly allowed a petition filed by B.P. Nagaraju, convener of the Gali Anjaneyaswamy Temple Trust, and other trustees. The petition challenged the government order issued on July 8, 2025, which had transferred the temple to the Muzrai Department’s supervision.
The court held that the order transferring the temple contained legal infirmities and therefore quashed it. Since the administrator’s appointment was based on the same government order, that process also stands cancelled. The court directed the administrator to hand over the temple’s administration to the concerned parties within one week of the order being published on the court website.
The ruling does not prevent the authorities from investigating allegations related to the temple’s finances and administration. The court said the relevant departments and authorities could conduct an inquiry into the allegations raised in the case and take appropriate action. It also kept open the objections of both the petitioners and the respondents.
The government’s July 8, 2025 order had cited disagreements among members of the temple’s management committee as one reason for taking over administration. It also referred to allegations that the temple received income running into lakhs of rupees but did not record annual savings because the money was being spent each year.
The order had further alleged that temple funds were being misused and that records relating to income and expenditure had not been maintained for the previous 25 years. According to the government order, the Muzrai Department’s assistant commissioner issued a notice after which records appeared to have been created.
The High Court’s decision therefore separates the question of administrative control from the allegations concerning financial management. While the government’s takeover order and the administrator’s appointment have been cancelled on legal grounds, the court has left the authorities free to examine the financial and record-keeping allegations independently.
Senior advocate D.R. Ravishankar represented the petitioners. The immediate administrative step arising from the judgment is the transfer of control back from the administrator to the relevant trustees or management representatives within the court-ordered one-week period.
