C Pradeep Kumar
In a country that upholds secularism and freedom of religion as constitutional ideals, the continued control of Hindu temples by state governments under various Endowments Acts is an anachronism and a constitutional anomaly. Enacted with the stated objective of streamlining temple administration and preventing mismanagement, these Acts have led instead to rampant encroachments, diversion of funds, and bureaucratization of sacred institutions. It is time to recognize this for what it is: systemic discrimination, cloaked in administrative concern.
Discriminatory State Control:
The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (Tamil Nadu), the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997, and similar laws in Telangana, Kerala, and Odisha provide for deep government control over temples. No such regulatory mechanism exists for churches or mosques, which continue to manage their institutions through community-elected or hereditary boards.
The Supreme Court, in the landmark case of S.P. Mittal v. Union of India (1983 AIR 1) held that Article 26 of the Constitution guarantees the right of religious denominations to manage their own affairs in matters of religion. In Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. State of Bombay (1954 SCR 1055), it was further held that the State cannot assume ownership of religious institutions under the guise of regulation.
Cases of Mismanagement and Encroachment
The track record of state-administered temples reveals disturbing trends:
In Tamil Nadu, the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department controls over 44,000 temples, including ancient shrines like Madurai Meenakshi, Rameswaram, and Palani Murugan. The CAG report (2013) revealed that 1,331 acres of temple lands were either encroached or missing from records.
In Andhra Pradesh, the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD), one of the richest religious bodies in the world, is under a government-appointed board. Despite being capable of managing its own affairs, decisions like the sale of temple lands in 2020 sparked massive outrage and were withdrawn only after sustained protests.
In Karnataka, under the 1997 Act, the government collected crores annually from temples under the pretext of “contributions” to a common pool. Out of Rs.72 crore collected in 2012–13, only Rs.12 crore was spent on temple development, while the rest remained unused or diverted.
In Odisha, the administration of the famous Jagannath Temple, Puri, was marred by allegations of mismanagement and neglect until the Supreme Court intervened in 2018 (Sri Jagannath Temple Management Case, W.P. (C) No. 649/2018) directing reforms and transparency.
Unequal Application of the Law:
The glaring disparity is not just administrative but constitutional. If India is a secular state, why are only Hindu temples nationalized while mosques and churches remain autonomous?
The Waqf Board, under the Waqf Act, 1995, is a community-run body with no government control over mosque rituals or revenues. Similarly, the Church of North India and various Catholic dioceses run their institutions and properties without state interference. This systemic asymmetry amounts to religious discrimination, undermining the right to equality under Article 14.
Judicial Acknowledgment of the Problem
In Subramanian Swamy v. State of Tamil Nadu (2014) 5 SCC 75, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of State regulation of temples but observed that such control must be temporary and cannot amount to perpetual administration. The Court emphasized that after rectification of mismanagement, the administration must be returned to the religious denomination.
Unfortunately, this principle is rarely observed. Temporary government control becomes permanent occupation, often lasting for decades.
What the People Are Demanding across India, a growing movement—cutting across caste, creed, and region—is demanding that temples be returned to the people:
The Save Temples Movement in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, led by spiritual leaders and legal professionals, has been actively filing PILs and documenting cases of temple land encroachment.
In Uttarakhand, the government’s attempt to bring 51 temples including Badrinath and Kedarnath under the Char Dham Devasthanam Board was met with fierce protests. In response, the state repealed the Act in 2022, setting an example for others.
Prominent figures like Justice Seshadri Naidu (Retd.), Dr. Subramanian Swamy, and Swami Dayananda Saraswati have long advocated for freeing temples from state control and establishing independent boards of devotees.
A Credible, Devotee-Driven Alternative:
Abolishing the Endowment Acts does not mean leaving temples to mismanagement. A robust and replicable alternative is both feasible and necessary:
- Statutory Devotee Boards: Democratically constituted boards, comprising hereditary trustees, spiritual leaders, donors, and devotees, under an independent regulatory authority.
- Audit & Transparency Mechanism: Compulsory publication of annual accounts, real-time online dashboards of donations, and temple asset registers.
- Judicial Oversight: A Temple Tribunal or Religious Affairs Bench in High Courts to swiftly resolve disputes and complaints.
- Role of the State: Limited to safeguarding public order and heritage conservation, with no say in appointment of priests, rituals, or financial decisions.
- Technology-Driven Systems: Digital ticketing, land and property management systems, and e-governance tools can be adopted without bureaucratic interference.
A Call to Conscience and Constitution:
The question is no longer just about temple management—it is about the soul of secularism and equality before law. The continued application of Endowments Acts violates the constitutional guarantees of religious freedom, equality, and non-discrimination. The temples of India, with their heritage, wealth, and spiritual power, belong to the devotees—not to the bureaucracy. The movement to reclaim them is not political—it is civilizational.
Let us rise not in anger but in constitutional clarity. Let us demand not chaos, but reform. And let us declare: the temples of Bharat shall be governed not by files, but by faith.
Citations and References:
- Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. State of Bombay, AIR 1954 SC 388
- S.P. Mittal v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 1
- Subramanian Swamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2014) 5 SCC 75
- CAG Report on Tamil Nadu HR&CE Department, 2013
- Sri Jagannath Temple Management Case, W.P. (C) No. 649/2018
- Waqf Act, 1995
- Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997
- Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987
- Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (Tamil Nadu)
- Government of Uttarakhand Press Note on Repeal of Char Dham Board Act, 2022
