Karnataka High Court directs Mysuru DC to stop construction atop Chamundi Hill

The Karnataka High Court has issued directions to the Mysuru Deputy Commissioner, to stop all construction activities on the premises of Sri Chamundeshwari Devi temple, atop the Chamundi Hill, in Mysuru.

In an interim order, issued on Thursday (April 9, 2026), in connection with a petition filed by Pramoda Devi Wadiyar, member of the erstwhile royal family, Judge Sachin S Magadum has also directed the Mysuru DC to place a detailed affidavit, furnishing complete accounts of the expenditure incurred out of the Rs 47 crore released by the Union government (Pilgrimage Rejuvenation And Spiritual Heritage Augmentation Drive), including particulars of works undertaken, amounts disbursed, and the present stage of execution, within two weeks from Thursday.

Petition

It can be noted that Wadiyar had filed a petition before the Court and it had issued a temporary stay on January 14, 2026, itself, against any permanent construction on the hill. Even after that, the court had issued a few directions.

In the interim order, the court has expressed displeasure against the Mysuru District Administration and has stated, “Any further violation of the interim orders of this Court, or breach of the undertaking recorded herein above, shall be viewed with utmost seriousness and would amount to aggravated contempt, warranting initiation of appropriate proceedings against the respondent – Deputy Commissioner - in accordance with law. This Court also takes on record the affidavit filed by the Deputy Commissioner, wherein it is acknowledged that the structures executed below the ground are of a permanent nature. Such an admission, prima facie, runs contrary to the binding interim orders passed by this Court on more than one occasion. The implications arising therefrom shall be duly examined at the time of the final hearing”.

Earlier orders

“The record of proceedings demonstrate that this Court has, on multiple occasions, consciously intervened and regulated the actions of the respondent – State government – about any construction activity at the disputed temple premises. This Court, by order dated October 15, 2024, while taking on record the statement of the Additional Advocate General, specifically recorded that ‘pending disposal of this writ petition, neither the movable nor the immovable properties belonging to the temple will be disposed of’ and clarified that any action contemplated shall be taken ‘only with the prior leave of this Court’,” the order states.

“Subsequently, when allegations of construction activity surfaced, this Court, by order dated January 14, 2026, recorded the undertaking of the State that ‘no construction activities, which are of permanent in nature will be done’, and directed that the State shall abide by the said undertaking. Again, on February 17, 2026, this Court reiterated the binding nature of the said undertaking and observed that ‘the State has given an undertaking that no permanent structure will be put up and there must be adherence unless this Court permits otherwise’, further cautioning that any activity contrary to the undertaking would invite strict action,” the order recalls.