New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed petitioners challenging the constitutional validity of various Hindu Religious Endowments laws in Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, and the Union Territory of Puducherry to approach the respective High Courts.
The petitions, some dating back to 2012, questioned government control over Hindu temples and religious institutions.
A bench comprising Justice B. V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma disposed of the cases, including a writ petition filed by Swami Dayananda Saraswati and others, while granting liberty to the petitioners to file fresh petitions in the jurisdictional High Courts.
The Court emphasized that High Courts would be better suited to examine the socio-cultural, economic, and religious dimensions of the matter and suggested they may form expert committees to assist in deliberations if required.
Justice Nagarathna remarked, “The entire economy earlier revolved around temples, and they continue to play a vital role. However, temple management must be examined from multiple perspectives, not just legal considerations.”
Senior Advocate S. Guru Krishnakumar, representing the petitioners, argued that several provisions of the state endowment laws were unconstitutional and imposed excessive state control over temple administration.
He contended that these laws unfairly discriminated against Hindu religious institutions compared to other religious establishments, which operate with greater autonomy. He also pointed out that the Supreme Court’s rulings on similar matters in the past made it necessary to have a uniform decision rather than fragmented state-wise verdicts.
However, Additional Solicitor General KM Natraj, appearing for the Centre and the Union Territory of Puducherry, opposed this, stating that religious endowment laws fall under state jurisdiction and should be adjudicated first by respective High Courts. He stressed that past cases had been successfully reviewed by state committees that made amendments when required.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing later in the hearing, strongly asserted that temples should never be under government control.
He remarked, “If religion has no business in governance, governance has no business in religion. Temples are not departments of the government.”
He emphasized that the state’s role should be limited to ensuring proper administration rather than direct intervention in religious matters.
Senior Advocate J. Sai Deepak, arguing for some of the petitioners, presented an elaborate and passionate case against state intervention in temple affairs.
He asserted that state governments had taken over temple management in the guise of regulation but continued to divert temple funds for non-religious purposes.
He highlighted that several provisions of the existing laws, including those reintroduced despite being declared unconstitutional in the Shirur Mutt case, placed undue restrictions on Hindu temples while leaving other religious institutions unaffected.
He further argued that the concept of temples as “public property” was misleading, as temples historically belonged to the devotee community and not the government.
During the discussion, Justice Nagarathna acknowledged that temples had historically played a significant role in regional economies and cultural heritage.
She posed critical questions regarding the impact of deregulating temple administration and whether such a move would benefit temple devotees.
In response, Sai Deepak stated, “Even now, the economy revolves around temples, but unfortunately, it is at the expense of the temples themselves. Instead of benefiting the community, temple revenues are often misused by administrative boards.”
At one point, Senior Advocate N. S. Nappinai, also representing the petitioners, pointed out that the challenges to these laws had been pending for over 16 years. “We have waited too long for an opportunity to present our case before the Supreme Court. Please give us one day to make our submissions before relegating us to the High Courts,” she urged.
The Tamil Nadu government’s counsel, Senior Advocate Amit Anand Tiwari, countered these claims, arguing that temple funds were properly managed and accounted for. He stated that the state had spent over ₹100 crores in the past year for temple restoration projects.
However, Sai Deepak retorted, “After melting temple gold, the state now claims to be restoring temples. The cycle continues with every change in government, where politically appointed administrators misuse temple resources.”
After hearing all arguments, the Supreme Court ruled that the grievances should be addressed at the High Court level, ensuring that each state’s unique legislative framework is considered. The bench observed that each state’s laws differed in nuances, and a single decision may not be applicable across all regions.
The Court stated that the petitioners were at liberty to file fresh cases in their respective High Courts, where the matters would be examined in greater depth. It also left open the possibility for High Courts to form expert committees to assist in evaluating the historical, religious, and socio-economic aspects of temple management.
The decision underscores the Court’s stance that fundamental questions about religious endowments and state intervention must be assessed on a case-by-case basis by jurisdictional courts before reaching the Supreme Court.
The ruling has reignited debates on temple autonomy, with legal and religious scholars closely monitoring the developments in the respective High Courts.
