2023 — The Karnataka High Court Division Bench Judgment
Writ Appeal No. 1110 of 2021 · Judgment dated 6 March 2023
On 6 March 2023, a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court dismissed the writ appeal challenging the Single Judge’s judgment of 28 September 2021. The appellate court found no ground to interfere with the earlier decision. Accordingly, the 2021 order setting aside the Karnataka Government’s decision of 19 March 2018 remained undisturbed.
1. How the appeal arose
Following the Supreme Court proceedings of 2015, the Karnataka Government considered questions concerning practices and administration at the institution. A High-Level Committee submitted its report in December 2017. The State Government subsequently issued an order on 19 March 2018.
That Government Order was challenged in W.P. No. 18752/2018. On 28 September 2021, a Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court quashed the Government Order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration in accordance with law, without reference to the High-Level Committee report. The 2023 writ appeal challenged that judgment.
↓
3 December 2017 — High-Level Committee report
↓
19 March 2018 — Karnataka Government Order
↓
28 September 2021 — Single Judge quashes Government Order
↓
6 March 2023 — Division Bench dismisses appeal
2. What the Division Bench decided
The Division Bench examined the earlier administrative and judicial sequence, including the status of the High-Level Committee’s report and the challenge to the Single Judge’s approach. It found no sufficient reason to depart from the Single Judge’s decision and dismissed the appeal.
This appellate outcome did not restore the 2018 Government Order. Nor should dismissal of the appeal be represented as a fresh, independent judicial determination of every claimed historical practice discussed in the litigation.
3. Historical practices and judicial evidence
The judgment recounts a long documentary and administrative history, including earlier litigation, enquiries and reports. Such passages are valuable for tracing the legal record. They must nevertheless be read according to their evidentiary character: a court’s description of an earlier report is evidence of what that report said, not necessarily independent verification of events centuries earlier.
The Division Bench also discussed the institution’s association with Hindu and Muslim devotees and the care required when courts address questions of religious rites and practices. These are observations made in the judicial context; they should not be substituted for original historical manuscripts, Government proceedings or contemporary records.
4. The scope of the result
What it does not establish by itself: The authenticity of every historical allegation, the precise practice followed in every earlier century, or the ownership of particular survey-numbered lands.
5. Connected archive records
BD-END-2010-01 — Endowment Commissioner’s report, 10 March 2010
BD-COURT-2015-01 — Supreme Court proceedings, 3 September 2015
BD-ADM-2017-01 — High-Level Committee report
BD-GOV-2018-01 — Karnataka Government Order, 19 March 2018
BD-COURT-2021-01 — Single Judge judgment, 28 September 2021
BD-COURT-2023-01 — Division Bench judgment, 6 March 2023
6. Source and archival note
Principal judicial record: Karnataka High Court, W.A. No. 1110/2021, judgment dated 6 March 2023 (Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil). The case should be consulted in its full reported or official form for precise wording, party submissions and operative directions. This editorial page is a structured archival summary, not a replacement for the court record.
Research method: We distinguish the operative judicial result, arguments attributed to parties, later descriptions of older documents, and original historical evidence. No invented judgment image or unverified quotation has been used.