The reported treatment of Sri Abhinava Shankara Bharati Swami, the junior pontiff of Kudali Sringeri Peetham, raises concerns extending beyond an internal disagreement at a religious institution. Accounts published by journalist Sandhya Ravishankar describe restrictions on the junior pontiff’s access to the Matha, his exclusion from traditional activities, allegations made against him and a series of police and civil proceedings.
The subsequent controversy surrounding the Matha’s golden padukas has added another dimension to questions about the exercise of institutional authority. Given its association with the Advaita tradition of Adi Shankaracharya, devotees believe that Kudali Sringeri Peetham should exemplify the values of dignity, restraint and mutual respect. They feel that incidents involving the alleged harassment and exclusion of a junior pontiff are particularly unfortunate in an institution of such spiritual significance.
The process leading to the appointment of Sri Abhinava Shankara Bharati Swami reportedly began in 2022, when a six-member committee was constituted by the Akhila Karnataka Brahmana Mahasabha to identify a successor to the senior pontiff. According to Sandhya Ravishankar (2026), he received sannyasa deeksha on May 22, 2023, following which the senior pontiff reportedly declared him the Uttaradhikari of the Peetham. His subsequent public engagements were also covered by regional media. Asianet News identified him as the 72nd Peethadhipati in January 2024, while Vijayavani reported his participation in a temple consecration ceremony in May 2024. In July 2024, Klive News covered his Chaturmasya observance at Kudali Sringeri Peetham. These reports provide a record of his public religious engagements following the appointment.
In May 2024, the junior pontiff was reportedly denied access to several parts of the Matha after the senior pontiff returned to Kudali. Rooms and facilities used by him were allegedly locked, forcing him to stay at the Gurukulam established by him. He was also reportedly excluded from the Matha’s traditional ceremonies and had to use a public toilet (Ravishankar, 2026). The allegations extend beyond restrictions on access. The junior pontiff was reportedly subjected to physical violence during a confrontation at the Matha’s Bengaluru branch on June 26, 2025, in which he was allegedly manhandled and injured. These incidents have raised serious concerns among devotees about his treatment.
Major Controversy
The controversy over the Matha’s golden padukas, reportedly weighing around 400 grams and valued at approximately Rs. 70 lakh, became a significant development in the allegations surrounding the junior pontiff. On August 19, 2024, Matha manager Ramesh Hulimani lodged a complaint at Holehonnur Police Station alleging that the padukas had gone missing from the Matha’s treasury. The complaint reportedly followed the discovery of an empty cupboard, prompting a police investigation. In a letter dated August 28, 2024, the senior pontiff also informed senior police officials that the padukas were missing. The letter reportedly raised suspicions about a former employee and the junior pontiff.
The investigation later brought a significant turn in the case. On September 29, 2026, TV9 Kannada reported that the padukas had not been stolen but were found in an SBI bank locker in Shivamogga, and that the police had submitted an investigation report to the court (TV9 Kannada, 2026). The following day, devotees and residents of Kudali addressed a press conference at Shivamogga Press Trust, stating that the police report showed the locker was linked to the Matha’s bank account and that the senior pontiff was its authorised operator. The Commune reported these claims on October 3, 2026, and stated that the devotees had raised concerns about the allegations made against the junior pontiff while the investigation was underway.
The police submission is particularly relevant because the original complaint had cast suspicion on the junior pontiff. The reported recovery of the padukas from a bank locker therefore raises questions about the basis on which suspicion was directed towards him. However, the police report should be distinguished from a final judicial determination; the court’s consideration of the B report would establish the legal status of the case. The episode has consequently intensified devotees’ concerns about the allegations made against the junior pontiff and the manner in which the matter was handled.
The allegations surrounding the junior pontiff also led to police complaints and legal proceedings. In March 2025, the senior pontiff reportedly lodged a police complaint alleging trespass at the Matha’s Bengaluru branch during a visit involving the junior pontiff and devotees. The following month, devotees approached the Karnataka government seeking an inquiry into the Matha’s administration and requesting the appointment of an administrative officer. The senior pontiff subsequently challenged the proposed government intervention before the Karnataka High Court.
The matter also reached civil courts, with proceedings reportedly initiated over the junior pontiff’s activities and his association with the Matha. During this period, a confrontation took place at the Bengaluru branch in June 2025, in which the junior pontiff was allegedly manhandled and injured. These developments added to the concerns raised by devotees about the restrictions and treatment he had reportedly faced.
In July 2026, a circular issued by the senior pontiff reportedly disowned the junior pontiff and denied having appointed him as successor. This position brought renewed attention to the circumstances of the junior pontiff’s appointment and the subsequent treatment he allegedly experienced within the institution.
Questions of Responsibility
The concerns surrounding the junior pontiff’s treatment extend beyond his access to the Matha and participation in its religious activities. They also raise questions about the management of the institution’s properties and the interests surrounding them. In her investigation, Sandhya Ravishankar refers to an earlier dispute involving land associated with the Venkatapura temple, where devotees and temple trustees reportedly objected to a land transaction. Her report also raises questions about proposed dealings involving approximately 150 acres near Shikaripura and a property in Bengaluru. According to her account, prospective buyers were reportedly seeking the signatures of both pontiffs, despite the senior pontiff being the authorised signatory for the Matha’s assets and bank accounts. The report suggests that the junior pontiff’s position as the designated successor could have implications for these transactions. These allegations require examination through the relevant property records and transaction documents.
Most concerning, however, is the reported restriction on the junior pontiff’s ability to discharge the responsibilities associated with his religious position. Having received sannyasa deeksha and been publicly presented as the Uttaradhikari, he is reportedly being kept away from the Matha’s premises and traditional ceremonies. Such exclusion does not merely affect his access to the institution; it also constrains his ability to perform the customary rituals, religious observances and other dharmic duties associated with the office of a Peethadhipati. The matter therefore calls for an impartial examination of the allegations, the Matha’s property transactions and the circumstances under which the junior pontiff has been prevented from carrying out these responsibilities. The developments surrounding Kudali Sringeri Matha raise questions about whether the dispute extends beyond the two pontiffs and whether other interests are influencing decisions within the institution. The alleged property dealings and the junior pontiff’s reported exclusion warrant a thorough and impartial investigation to establish whether there are larger forces at play. At Kudali Sringeri Matha, an institution rooted in Adi Shankaracharya’s Advaita tradition, such circumstances should never have arisen. It should stand as an example of dharma, dignity and mutual respect, placing its spiritual responsibilities above every other interest.
(The writer is a Bengaluru-based research scholar. Views personal.)
