Why Karnataka Courts Dismiss Temple Trustee Writ Petitions Filed Without the Rajya Dharmika Parishad

Litigation over temple management and hereditary trusteeship in Karnataka frequently reaches the High Court through writ petitions under Article 226. A recurring procedural pitfall, however, has led to the dismissal of many such petitions: the failure to implead the Karnataka Rajya Dharmika Parishad and its judicial arm, the Nyayadhikarana, as parties. The question that arises often is whether a petition without arraying the Rajya Dharmika Parishad is maintainable — and the consistent answer from the Karnataka High Court is that it generally is not, where the impugned order emanates from, or is referable to, the Parishad or its organs.

The Statutory Framework Under the 1997 Endowments Act

The Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 creates a layered administrative and quasi-judicial structure:

• The Rajya Dharmika Parishat holds powers of general superintendence and control over notified religious institutions and charitable endowments, including functions under Section 20A of the Act 2026 0 Supreme(Kar) 387.
• The Nyayadhikarana functions as the judicial organ of the Parishad, adjudicating disputes referred to it.
• Zilla Dharmika Parishats operate at the district level, with appeals against their orders lying before the Rajya Dharmika Parishat under Section 63A of the Act 2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 30784.

Because jurisdiction under this scheme is clearly delineated in the Statute, courts have insisted that statutory bodies be properly before the court when their actions are challenged. In one matter, the High Court quashed an administrator's appointment because a power vested in the Rajya Dharmika Parishad was exercised by a constituent body — underscoring that the exercise of such jurisdiction should only be by the Rajya Dharmika Parishad and cannot be by the second respondent who would be a constituent of the Rajya Dharmika Parishad2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 38256. The same logic of strict adherence to the statutory chain applies to who must be arrayed in a writ petition.

The Maintainability Rule: Parishad as a Necessary Party

Where a writ petition challenges an order passed by, or referable to, the Rajya Dharmika Parishat, the Court has taken the view that the petition is not maintainable unless the Parishad is impleaded. In one notable decision, a prior writ petition had been allowed without the Karnataka Rajya Dharmika Parishat being made a party, and the Parishad itself later challenged that outcome, arguing that it was impermissible for affected authorities to circumvent proper impleadment 2026 0 Supreme(Kar) 387. The principle is straightforward: an authority whose order is under attack, and whose statutory powers are in issue, is generally a necessary and proper party without whom the lis cannot be effectively adjudicated.

This procedural rule operates alongside the requirement of exhausting statutory remedies. Where an order is appealable before the Rajya Dharmika Parishat under Section 63A, petitioners have commonly been permitted or required to pursue that appeal rather than invoke the writ jurisdiction 2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 30784.

Hereditary Trusteeship: Nyayadhikarana Versus the Civil Court

The most detailed pronouncement on this theme concerns disputes over the office of hereditary trustee of a family temple. The Court held that:

• A writ petition challenging an order referring a trusteeship dispute to the Nyayadhikarana is not maintainable without properly impleading the Parishad and the Nyayadhikarana 2022 0 Supreme(Kar) 1316.
• The jurisdiction of civil courts under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure to decide questions relating to rights to the office of Hereditary Trustee of a Family Temple is not absolutely excluded under Section 63 of the 1997 Act, even after the Amendment Act of 2011 2022 0 Supreme(Kar) 1316.
• The Dharmika Parishat resolves only an in praesenti dispute as to who holds or held the office of the hereditary trustee, while the larger question of succession under personal law must essentially be decided by a civil court 2022 0 Supreme(Kar) 1316.

In that case, the impugned order was quashed because it referred to the Nyayadhikarana a question already pending in a civil suit (O.S.No.65/2020 before a Mangalore civil court) 2022 0 Supreme(Kar) 1316.

Locus Standi of Devotees and Strangers

The Court also clarified who may invoke these proceedings:

• A devotee may have a vested interest in rituals performed according to the Agamas, but this does not confer locus standi to seek adjudication of hereditary trusteeship 2022 0 Supreme(Kar) 1316.
• A stranger — or even a relative not claiming under the last trustee — cannot force the next legal heir into civil litigation merely by asserting a rival claim 2022 0 Supreme(Kar) 1316.
• A claim for better administration of a temple is distinct from a claim to hereditary trusteeship; only the latter falls for decision by the statutory forum.

In another instance, the Parishad itself concluded that a petitioner before the Nyayadhikarana was not a proper party to the proceedings, and the writ petition challenging that outcome was dismissed 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 35013.

Distinction Between Hereditary and Ordinary Trustees

The Court emphasised that the Act advisedly distinguishes hereditary from non-hereditary trustees: non-hereditary trustees face greater control by the Board, whereas hereditary trustees enjoyed larger privileges with correspondingly less control 2022 0 Supreme(Kar) 1316. Consequently, where it is conceded on all sides that an office is hereditary, the Board or Nyayadhikarana generally has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute — a point that often determines which forum is competent.

Practical Pointers for Litigants

1. Implead the Parishad and Nyayadhikarana whenever the impugned order originates from, or is referable to, these bodies.
2. Exhaust statutory remedies — including appeals under Section 63A against Zilla Dharmika Parishat orders — before approaching the High Court 2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 30784.
3. Choose the right forum for the right question: present possession disputes go to the Nyayadhikarana; questions of succession to hereditary trusteeship go to the civil court 2022 0 Supreme(Kar) 1316.
4. Verify locus standi: devotees and strangers typically lack standing in pure trusteeship-succession disputes.
5. Watch for jurisdictional errors: decisions of the Parishad must comply with statutory procedure, including the requirement of a unanimous resolution under Rule 23 where applicable 2021 0 Supreme(AP) 425.

Conclusion

Karnataka courts treat the Rajya Dharmika Parishad as an indispensable party in writ litigation concerning orders within its statutory domain, and they jealously guard the boundary between the Nyayadhikarana's limited in praesenti jurisdiction and the civil court's wider jurisdiction over succession to hereditary trusteeship. Litigants who skip the impleadment requirement, bypass statutory appeals, or invoke the wrong forum risk dismissal on maintainability alone. Because outcomes turn on the specific facts and the current state of the 1997 Act and its amendments, this article is general information and not a substitute for advice from a qualified advocate on your particular matter.