The High Court of Madhya Pradesh has stayed the execution of an order directing the appointment of a representative priest, or Pujari Pratinidhi , at the historic Shri Mahakaleshwar Temple in Ujjain. The Division Bench, led by Justice Subodh Abhyankar and Justice Jai Kumar Pillai, issued the interim relief following an appeal filed by members of a hereditary priest family who claimed they were improperly excluded from the original writ proceedings.

The dispute originated when a petition was filed by Mangal Sharma, seeking to enforce a prior appellate court decision that favored his appointment as the representative of Kamal Sharma. A Single Judge of the High Court had previously disposed of that petition after receiving an assurance from the Collector—acting in his capacity as Chairman of the Shree Mahakaleshwar Mandir Prabandh Samiti—that the appointment recommendation dated January 16, 2023, would be implemented within 30 days.

Allegations of Procedural Omissions The current appellants, identified as the sons of the late Dharamraj Sharma, challenged the Single Judge’s October 14, 2026, order. Their legal counsel argued that as members of the temple’s hereditary priestly family, they held a direct interest in the appointment process. They contended that their exclusion from the original writ petition constituted a failure to implead necessary parties, rendering the subsequent order problematic.

The appellants emphasized the urgency of their request for a stay, noting the strict timeline imposed by the lower court's order. They maintained that compliance with the impugned direction within the 30-day window would irreparably harm their legal position and ancestral rights. The court found merit in the appellants' submission, observing that the complexity of the ongoing controversy necessitated an immediate pause on the implementation of the lower court's directive.

Court’s Directive and Next Steps During the hearing on the question of interim relief , the Bench noted the gravity of the competing claims. The order stated: "Counsel for the appellants has submitted that since the order is to be complied with within 30 days' time, whereas according to the appellants, they were also the necessary parties to the petition , and they were not even made party in the writ petition , the impugned order may be stayed... considering the controversy involved, we are inclined to direct that till the next date of hearing, operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed."

Adding to the complexity of the matter, legal counsel representing the administrator of the Shree Mahakaleshwar Mandir Prabandh Samiti informed the Division Bench that the temple management body is also in the process of filing a separate appeal against the same order. This indicates a multi-layered legal challenge involving both individual hereditary claimants and the statutory management body overseeing the temple's affairs.

The High Court has directed the State government to file a comprehensive reply to the appeal. The matter has been scheduled for further hearing on December 9, 2026. Until that time, the status quo regarding the appointment of the Pujari Pratinidhi remains in effect, effectively freezing the implementation of the earlier order that had prompted the current legal conflict. The court's decision ensures that the rights of all involved parties will be scrutinized further before any permanent changes to the temple’s priestly representation are finalized.