Pramoda Devi Wadiyar responds to ongoing statements & counter-statements
Mysuru: Even as statements and counterstatements are being made publicly over the erstwhile Mysore Royal Family and the ownership of the Mysore Palace, Pramoda Devi Wadiyar has responded with a five-page press statement to clarify that Mysore Palace, Golden Throne and Ambari (Golden Howdah) are under the Royal Family’s custody.
Addressing a press meet at the Palace premises this morning, Pramoda Devi thanked Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar for his statement that he would examine and rectify the lapses through dialogue.
Pramoda Devi Wadiyar, who said her response meant to put things in the right perspective, began her press meet saying, “I am issuing this communication to address the ongoing statements and counter-statements and to place the relevant facts in their proper perspective. I am circulating this statement to ensure that the facts set out herein are accurately represented and that there is no scope for any misrepresentation or misinterpretation of the matters addressed herein.”
Thanking everyone who supported her and her family during the 11-day Dasara festivities that concluded with the Jumboo Savari on Oct. 21, she said, “I sincerely appreciate all those who have understood and respected the sentiments expressed in my earlier press release.”
‘It was not a letter to the Government’
I wish to clarify that the press release issued to the media on 25.10.2026 was my response to their request for my reaction regarding cancellation of Vajramushti Kalaga and various other aspects of Sharannavaratri-2026 and it was not a letter addressed to the Government as reported in certain sections of the media,” she opined.
Appreciating Chief Minister D.K Shivakumar for his statement that he would examine and rectify the lapses through dialogue, she said she was looking forward to meeting him.
“My concerns have been limited to the lapses and lack of coordination among Government Departments, particularly high- handedness of the Police personnel at the two specific gates which interfered with religious rituals observed by the Royal Family,” Pramoda Devi Wadiyar pointed out.
Only my suggestions, not decision
Continuing she said, “The suggestions, not decision, I made in my earlier press release was intended to get public support/response and not to offend the Government and I hoped that the Government would consider and value my suggestions.”
“At no point have I blamed the State Government. While I understand the Government’s position in defending its employees, my press statements have addressed only the incidents which interfered/ disrupted our private customary/ religious rituals and observances on the specific occasion,” she said.
Places on record correct facts
Maintaining that some people in responsible positions have the habit of making factually incorrect statements, Pramoda Devi said, after going through all the reactions and responses from various individuals including certain officials, she would like to place on record the following facts, point by point:
1. The Maharaja of Mysore, Jayachamaraja Wadiyar, signed the Instrument of Accession on Aug. 9, 1947 to integrate his kingdom/ State into the Dominion of India. The Union Government accepted it on Aug. 16, 1947. Subsequently an agreement came to be entered into between the Governor-General of India and the Maharaja of Mysore on 23.1.1950.
Under the said agreement, the Maharaja of Mysore submitted an inventory of list of immovable and movable properties “distinct from State properties” belonging to him. This was accepted and confirmed vide a letter dated 8.1.1951 by V.P. Menon, Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of States. The Then Chief Secretary of Government of Mysore is also a signatory to this.
2. The Bangalore Palace and the Mysore Palace and other various Palaces/ buildings were acquired/ purchased/built from private funds of the Maharaja.
3. An official communication dated 28.10.1972 from the Ministry of Home Affairs to Chief Secretaries of all concerned States, clarifies and reconfirms the earlier position regarding private properties, that “the Government of India is of the view that the Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1971, does not affect the properties which were recognised as private properties of the Rulers in accordance with the settlement with them. That being so, the properties which had vested in the Rulers in accordance with these settlements will continue to remain with them.”
This communication further clarifies that “In this matter, the Government is advised that the subsequent correspondence with the Ruler cannot over-ride the covenants/merger Agreements and therefore, the properties do not revert to the State after withdrawal of recognition by the Constitution (Twenty- sixth Amendment) Act, 1971.”
Proceeds from gate collection diverted to Government Treasury
4. Jayachamaraja Wadiyar passed away on 23.9.1974. In 1976, the State Government proposed and requested my mother-in-law, Maharani Tripurasundrammanniavaru and my husband to issue a letter agreeing to hand over certain portions of the Mysore Palace to the State Government for maintenance and management.
Subsequently, these portions of the Palace were opened to the public for viewing and it was agreed that the proceeds through gate collections and lease amounts etc., collected from the visitors and tenants be utilised exclusively towards the maintenance and management of the Mysore Palace and also defray certain debts, outstanding tax arrears etc.
However, contrary to the understanding and assurances given, the proceeds from the gate collections were diverted to the Government Treasury, thereby defeating the very purpose for which the arrangement had been made and the Government failed to honour the commitments made to the Royal Family.
5. Aggrieved by the mismanagement and diversion of these funds, my late husband, Srikantadatta Narasimharaja Wadiyar, corresponded with the State Government and withdrew the letter under which the said portions of the Mysore Palace had been handed over for maintenance and management and sought the possession of the said portions of the Mysore Palace from the Government.
6. As the Government failed to respond to his correspondence and address the concerns raised, he was constrained to approach the High Court of Karnataka, which subsequently passed an order in 1997 in his favour, directing that the portions of the Mysore Palace under the maintenance and management of the State Government and the management of the said properties be handed over to my husband within 30 days.
Govt. enacts Mysore Palace (Acquisition and Transfer) Act
However, instead of complying with the directions of the High Court, the State Government proceeded to enact the Mysore Palace (Acquisition and Transfer) Act, 1998 and a Board was constituted for managing the Palace. This Act is under challenge and pending till date. Our continued residence is due to the subsisting orders of the Court and cannot therefore be characterised as an act of governmental generosity or as a favour extended to the Royal Family.
7. The then Karnataka Government, after bringing in the Mysore Palace (Acquisition and Transfer) Act, 1998, exhibited its magnanimity by offering 1 acre of land within Mysore and a sum of Rs. 1 crore to my late husband Srikantadatta Narasimharaja Wadiyar, in the event of us having to vacate the Palace premises.
However, he declined the magnanimous offer made to him and thought it prudent to not burden the State exchequer and decided to challenge the Mysore Palace (Acquisition and Transfer) Act, 1998 before the Courts and the same is still pending before the Courts.
Subjected to hardship
8. Owing to the Government’s failure to hand over the portions of the Mysore Palace to my late husband, we were subjected to considerable hardship, particularly in settling the outstanding tax dues. His income was attached, resulting in certain properties being auctioned by the tax authorities to settle the tax dues.
The difficulties we endured were immense and also extended to the disconnection of electricity supply to our residential portion of the Mysore Palace for an extended period of time.
The circumstances surrounding these actions made it clear that their intention was to make our continued stay at the Palace traumatic and compel us to vacate the premises.
Despite the immense hardship and adverse circumstances, we endured and chose to suffer in silence.
9. Further, I would like to clarify that the Mysore Palace (Acquisition and Transfer) Act, 1998 is concerning the Mysore Palace only and does not affect any other properties that are part of the inventory of list of private properties of the Maharaja of Mysore as it is misunderstood and wrongly interpreted by many officials.
10. I also want to make it known that the Throne and Ambari have been and continue to be under our custody.
Govt. pays Royalty, not rent towards Ambari
11. As regards paying rent towards Ambari, I wish to clarify that the Government pays Royalty not rent as expressed by the District in-Charge Minister.
Royalty is paid because the Government commercially exploits by using the Ambari for publicity during the conduct of Nada Habba in its publicity materials and by selling tickets for Jumboo Savari procession from the foregrounds of the Palace.
With regard to the assertion that the State is not obligated to inform the Palace of the elephant chosen to carry the Ambari, Pramoda Devi stated that as the owner of the Ambari “I have every right to know which elephant is entrusted with the responsibility to carry it. The safety of the Ambari, the elephant and the people gathered for the occasion is of paramount importance to me.”
“Nowhere have I said that there is a protocol to inform us in advance about the elephant designated to carry the Ambari and the idol of Nada Devathe, Sri Chamundeshwari Ammanavaru. There are no protocols for many things but there has always been mutual understanding and trust, co-operation and confidence which used to exist earlier,” she said
“In the earlier years, the Veterinary doctors and Forest Department officials would take us into confidence by informing the selection of the elephant entrusted to carry the Ambari. It was on the basis of this confidence and their assurances regarding the elephant’s fitness, temperament and ability to shoulder this responsibility that we would consent giving the Ambari to the Government for the procession,” she said and observed, “It is therefore surprising that a practice founded on decades of mutual confidence and a shared commitment to safety is now being viewed as a matter of no concern to the owner of the very Ambari used for the procession.”
On Shivamogga Jumboo Savari incident
Quoting the incident during the Shivamogga Jumboo Savari, when the elephant carrying the Silver Ambari ran amok, causing the Ambari to fall and break, she said it serves as a stark reminder of the risks involved and the importance of exercising due diligence in selecting an elephant capable of safely shouldering this responsibility.
On Bangalore Palace
As regards Bangalore Palace property and land around it, the Karnataka Government enacted similar Act namely, Bangalore Palace Acquisition and Transfer Act in 1996. “However, we have been in possession of the property and the land. Our appeal is pending before the Supreme Court,” she said.
“The very fact that the Government of Karnataka enacted legislation to acquire the Bangalore Palace and the Mysore Palace properties proves that they were private properties and did not belong to the State,” Pramoda Devi said in her concluding statement.
This post was published on November 4, 2026 7:30 pm