The Karnataka government, on Thursday, October 1, told the Supreme Court that the practice of dedicating women or girls as Devadasis is not currently prevalent in any of the 15 districts where it was historically reported, following a district-level verification exercise by state authorities.
A bench of Justices Augustine George Masih and R Mahadevan took note of the state’s affidavit and directed Karnataka to provide further details on rehabilitation and awareness measures for former Devadasis. The court listed the matter for the next hearing after four weeks.
The 15 districts covered by the verification are Bellary, Koppal, Yadgir, Kalaburagi, Davangere, Haveri, Vijayanagara, Dharwad, Shivamogga, Vijayapura, Belagavi, Raichur, Gadag, Chitradurga, and Bagalkot.
According to Live Law, the state said that inquiries were conducted by the Women and Child Development Department and the Karnataka State Women Development Corporation through Devadasi Dedication Prohibition Officers and police authorities.
“On the basis of the information and reports received from the concerned Devadasi Dedication Prohibition Officers in consultation with the police department, the state respectfully submits that the Devadasi system, in the sense of dedication of women or girls as Devadasis, is not presently in practice in any of the 15 districts,” the affidavit stated.
The state, however, acknowledged that former Devadasis continue to live in these districts and said measures were necessary to ensure that the practice is not revived.
The affidavit was submitted to the court by Vasanthi Uppar, General Manager of the Karnataka State Women Development Corporation.
The state counsel told the court that multi-level inquiries through Devadasi Dedication Prohibition Officers and police authorities across all 15 districts had found no ongoing system of dedication.
The state also informed the court that 33 cases have been registered since the Karnataka Devadasis (Prohibition of Dedication) Act, 1982 came into force, with 12 resulting in convictions. The remaining cases are at various stages of inquiry and hearing.
The state said that the presence of former Devadasis in the districts does not by itself establish that the dedication system continues. It also submitted that participation in religious activities such as prayers, bhajans, and ceremonies associated with local deities cannot, by itself, be treated as evidence of prohibited dedication.
The affidavit said Karnataka is implementing a Devadasi Rehabilitation Programme in all 15 districts. The programme includes measures relating to education, self-employment, and financial assistance for children and descendants of former Devadasis, along with awareness and information, education, and communication activities aimed at preventing new dedications.
The Supreme Court took note of the state’s “detailed district-level verification” and asked Karnataka to place on record particulars of the benefits provided under the rehabilitation programme, including financial assistance and other support, to former Devadasis and their families.
“The State shall give the details with regard to the efforts being made for the rehabilitation and awareness,” the court ordered.
Karnataka also said that officials have been directed to report any attempted dedication to the relevant prohibition officers and the police. The state said response mechanisms would be reviewed and strengthened through coordination between departments, sensitisation of police and field-level officials, and continued monitoring.
The proceedings arise from a property dispute between Kamalabai and others and Shivappa, also known as Shivayogi, concerning a succession claim linked to the alleged dedication of Mayawwa before the 1982 Act came into force.
The Karnataka government was impleaded in the proceedings for placing before the Supreme Court the present status of the Devadasi dedication practice in the state. The amicus curiae sought additional time to place further material and facts before the court. The bench granted two weeks for this purpose and exempted the amicus curiae from filing a separate affidavit.