Back
Questions Kopeshwar Temple Spending, Appoints Five Advocates to Inspect Site
A of the at its has raised serious concerns over "humongous" public spending on ancillary works around the 12th-century Kopeshwar Temple, appointing a five-member committee of advocates to independently inspect the heritage site and report back within four weeks.
A Heritage Marvel in Distress
The , filed by Prashant Vasantrao Salunke, centres on the preservation of the Kopeshwar Temple in Khidrapur, Kolhapur — a 12th-century architectural marvel built by the Shilahara dynasty between 1109 and 1178 CE. Dedicated to Lord Shiva, the temple sits on the banks of the Krishna River and is renowned for its intricate stone carvings and rare joint shrine venerating both Shiva and Vishnu. Its unique circular, open-topped "Swarg Mandap" is supported by 48 elaborately carved pillars, with 108 pillars sustaining the entire structure, surrounded by 92 outward-facing stone elephants.
Five Urgent Threats
During the hearing, the bench — comprising Justice Milind N. Jadhav and Justice Nandesh S. Deshpande — identified five pressing structural issues requiring immediate attention. Justice Jadhav had coincidentally visited the temple on during a heavy downpour, observing two significant cracks in the ceiling — one in the inner sanctum and another at the entrance — along with massive water seepage soaking the southern wall outside the Garbhagriha.
The court further noted that three pillars of the Swarg Mandap are in critical condition. Two have tilted due to load-bearing stress and monsoon exposure, while a third has "virtually given way" and is currently held up only by metal props installed by the
(ASI). The bench warned that if even one of the 48 pillars fails,
"the entire Swarga Mandap may collapse."
'Beyond Comprehension': Questioning the Rs 10 Crore Wall
The court's most pointed criticism targeted the allocation of roughly Rs 101 crore sanctioned by the State for the temple's restoration. Government counsel confirmed that approximately Rs 10 crore was being spent on a compound wall — an expenditure the bench found
"beyond comprehension to a prudent man."
"The primary purpose undoubtedly would be to preserve the temple first which is not even on the horizon."
The judges observed that the outer compound wall is already fully raised, yet construction of an inner wall continues, calling for detailed justification of such massive outlay.
The Rs 12.84 Crore River Ghat Controversy
Even more contentious was the proposed expenditure of Rs 12.84 crore — routed through the (MSRDC) — for a river ghat admittedly located 200 metres from the temple, separated by a fully constructed development road. The bench noted that of the Rs 101 crore sanctioned, only Rs 44 crore were specifically earmarked for the temple's preservation and resurrection.
"One-third of the said amount cannot be allowed to be spent on a public-purpose development which is 200 meters away from the temple."
The court emphasised that
"the temple funds cannot be diverted in this fashion,"
insisting that public development remains the State's separate responsibility, which must be fulfilled through proper channels — not heritage conservation funds.
Security, , and Private Contracts Under Scrutiny
The bench also flagged several governance lapses. Lady ASI guards stationed at the temple were reportedly unable to control cows being led inside by locals for worship, while visitors' pet dogs also entered unchallenged. The court directed ASI to display proper rules-and-regulations signboards outside the temple — currently, dilapidated boards were found inside.
On a separate note, the bench took objection to the MSRDC's private negotiation-based issued to for a structural survey at a fee of Rs 24 lakh, noting the petitioner's claim that the firm may have been blacklisted earlier. It also put ASI on notice over the failure to frame site-specific heritage mandated under the , despite 15 years having elapsed — particularly critical given that Khidrapur is a 100% flood-prone area, with the temple submerged under 12 feet of water in 2019.
An Independent Fact-Finding Body
To ensure transparency, the court constituted a "Court Committee" of five advocates — , , , , and — through the . The committee is directed to visit the temple, confer with the , Police Patil, Deputy Executive Engineer, and others, and submit a comprehensive report within four weeks, with police protection and logistical support from the Collector.
"The temple itself needs substantial funds for its preservation and restoration which are yet to be ascertained,"
the bench observed, making clear that spending priorities must shift decisively toward the monument's survival. The matter stands adjourned to
.
