The Bombay High Court has allowed the Shri Vitthal Rukmini Mandir Samiti to proceed with protective chemical coating of the idols of Lord Vitthal and Goddess Rukmini at Pandharpur, rejecting a challenge by devotees and temple priests who wanted the traditional vajralep method to be followed. Justice Shailesh P. Brahme passed the order on August 7, 2026.
The dispute arose after the temple committee decided to undertake protective work to prevent further deterioration of the idols. The decision was based on a December 19, 2025 report prepared by the deputy superintendent archaeological chemist at Aurangabad.
The petitioners argued that chemical coating was arbitrary, lacked transparency and was not authorised under the Pandharpur Temples Act, 1973. They also urged that the traditional vajralep method should be used instead.
A trial court had initially stopped the proposed work on June 22, 2026, holding that the idols were in a good state of conservation and that there was no immediate danger. The appellate court later reversed that order on July 17, following which the petitioners approached the High Court.
Justice Brahme noted that the committee's decision was supported by expert opinion and was not taken independently. The High Court also rejected the argument that the committee lacked statutory authority to protect and maintain the idols.
The court observed, “It can be safely inferred that deterioration of the idols is recurring”, and held that preservation is a continuous responsibility requiring scientific assessment.
The court further said that the petitioners had not referred to any specific rule from the shastras or agamas supporting their demand for the traditional method. It also disagreed with the trial court's assessment of the idols' condition, observing that a trial court was not an expert in idol conservation.
The High Court rejected the challenge and permitted the Shri Vitthal Rukmini Mandir Samiti to proceed with the protective chemical coating. It held that preservation of the idols falls within the committee's statutory responsibilities and that the objections raised against the scientific conservation process were not supported by sufficient material.
