The Madras High Court has raised concerns over the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR and CE) department’s decision to allocate Rs. 28.76 crore from the funds of the Mylapore Kapaleeswarar Temple for the construction of a cultural centre on 22.80 acres of temple land at Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai. The court questioned whether HR and CE had sought public opinion on this significant financial decision.
A summer vacation bench, comprising Justices G.R. Swaminathan and P.B. Balaji, granted time for Advocate General P.S. Raman to obtain instructions from the HR and CE department. The bench highlighted that the HR and CE Commissioner is required to publish the provisional decision to divert surplus temple funds in a Tamil daily newspaper and invite objections and suggestions from the public. The final decision should then be based on this public feedback.
Organiser E-Exit Poll: Whom will you vote for?
The court’s query came in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by temple activist T.R. Ramesh, challenging the HR and CE’s decision to utilise temple funds for building the cultural centre. The PIL argues that temple funds should primarily be used for the upkeep and maintenance of temples, many of which are in dire need of attention.
Justice Swaminathan questioned the HR and CE’s approach, stating, “Did you call for public objections before deciding to use Rs. 28.76 crore of Mylapore Kapaleeswarar Temple money to construct a cultural centre on 22.8 grounds of temple land at RA Puram?”
Justices GR Swaminathan & PB Balaji of #MadrasHighCourt adjourn a case filed against use of the Mylapore Kapaleeswarar temple funds for construction of a cultural centre to 3rd week of June. Record AG's submission that construction will not proceed. @THChennai https://t.co/0EfqNtrdwf
— Mohamed Imranullah S (@imranhindu) May 23, 2024
Justices GR Swaminathan and PB Balaji of the Madras High Court have adjourned a case filed against the use of Mylapore Kapaleeswarar temple funds for the construction of a cultural centre to the third week of June. The decision came after the Attorney General (AG) assured the court that construction would not proceed.
During the hearing, Justice Swaminathan asked whether proper procedures had been followed in the matter. The AG, PS Raman, responded that he had no instructions on the matter. He clarified that the proposal originated with the temple trustees and emphasised that it was not akin to constructing a luxury hotel but rather a cultural centre. Raman argued that the trustees were better equipped to decide how temple funds should be utilised.
However, counsel for the PIL petitioner, advocate Niranjan Rajagopalan, raised concerns about the value of the temple land and questioned the need to spend Rs. 28.76 crore of temple funds on constructing a cultural centre. He pointed out that the guideline value of the land was Rs. 16,000 per square feet, and renting out the property could fetch a significant amount of annual revenue for the temple. Rajagopalan argued that constructing the cultural centre would be wasteful, potentially leading to a loss of around Rs. 117 crore considering the total value of the temple land.
During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner highlighted that according to the rules, any proposal for the diversion of surplus temple funds must originate from the trustees and be approved by the HR and CE Commissioner after due process. However, in this case, it was revealed that the announcement for the construction of the cultural centre was made by HR and CE Minister P.K. Sekarbabu in the Legislative Assembly on May 4, 2022, prior to obtaining a proposal from the trustees and without following the mandated procedure of seeking public objections.
The counsel argued that the failure to follow due process could result in significant losses for the temple, including the expenditure of bank interest accrued to temple deposits. He urged the court to quash the Government Order (G.O.) issued in 2023, which provided administrative sanction for the use of temple funds for the construction project.
In response, AG PS Raman assured the court that necessary permits had been sought from the CMDA, and no construction would proceed without statutory approvals. He suggested that revenue could be generated by renting stalls in the proposed cultural centre building.
The bench ordered the HR and CE department to provide a response and adjourned the matter for further deliberation.
The case has sparked a public outcry, with social media users expressing concerns about the alleged mismanagement of temple funds. FreeHinduTemples, a Twitter handle advocating for temple preservation, criticised the decision to use temple funds for the cultural centre project, questioning whether proper public objections were sought. The tweet highlighted ongoing challenges with the HR and CE department’s handling of temple finances, suggesting a pattern of fund misappropriation.
As the legal battle continues, the Madras High Court remains committed to upholding the integrity of temple administration and ensuring transparency in the use of temple funds. Further developments in the case are anticipated as the court awaits a response from the HR and CE department.
🙏 to @trramesh for relentless fight Vs HRCE: No Tamizhar Kalachara Maiyam on Rs 100 23 grds of Kapaleeswarar Temple Crs @ Rs 29 Crs cost? When asked AG says approval pending. Court: ‘Did you call for public objections?’. AG: 🥺. HRCE siphoning off Temples' funds time and again😡 pic.twitter.com/y5AhgnsSD8
— Aalayam Kaappom / ஆலயம் காப்போம் (@AalayamKaappom) May 23, 2024
The Dravidian model or the successive Dravidian governments have been keen on spending the temple funds to suit their whims and fancies. Despite the courts admonishing them for such a move, they are hell bent on plundering and splurging temple funds that go unabated. The HR and CE have failed to raise the occasion of saving temple’s movable and immovable properties, better upkeep, renovating dilapidated temples, and protecting the properties from alienation, encroachment. It has been said, written, and taken to court by devotees and activists of the temple movement. The Dravidian government did not think of touching the properties and places of worship belonging to minority communities, fearing reprisal from them that would affect their political fortunes.
Comments