A hard blow to the Dravidian Model’s recalcitrant DMK government, which failed to heed earlier directions, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, by order dated 19 August, quashed five Government Orders issued by the Tamil Nadu government approving the construction of commercial wedding halls using temple lands and funds, ruling that temple funds cannot be treated as public or government money.
A Division Bench comprising Justices S.M. Subramaniam and G. Arul Murugan, while disposing of a batch of petitions, ruled that temple funds cannot be treated as public or government funds. “The money offered to the temple belongs to the deity. The deity becomes the owner of the funds and properties. In law, a deity in a temple is considered a minor. Thus, the High Court, as parens patriae, is duty bound to protect the interests of the deity, the temple funds, and properties belonging to the deity,” the Bench observed.
The Court also noted Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR & CE) Department Minister P.K. Sekar Babu’s earlier announcement in the State Assembly that marriage halls would be built in 27 temples at a cost of Rs 80 crore.
In their 48-page order, the judges stated: “The Writ Petitions on hand have been instituted to assail the Government Orders issued in G.O.(Ms) No.98, G.O.(Ms) No.154, G.O.(Ms) No.343, G.O.(Ms) No.556 and G.O.(Ms) No.514 of the Department of Tourism, Culture and Endowments, dated 03.03.2023, 16.05.2025, 26.09.2024, 24.12.2024 and 18.12.2024 respectively, granting permission for the construction of marriage halls by utilising temple funds belonging to five different temples situated in different places.”
Referring specifically, they added: “Kaalakatheeswarar Abirami Amman Temple is one amongst the 27 temples, and based on the announcement made on the floor of the Legislative Assembly, the impugned Government Orders came to be issued.”
The petitioners argued that the government has no jurisdiction to utilise temple funds or surplus temple funds for the construction of marriage halls under the provisions of the HR & CE Act. They further contended that marriage halls serve purely commercial purposes, as the government had clearly stated they would be rented out for Hindu marriage functions. Thus, the orders violated Sections 35, 36 and 66 of the Tamil Nadu HR & CE Act.
It was also submitted that no building plan approval had been obtained for the proposed marriage halls. The petition stated, “The temple lands identified are adjacent to temples and are currently being used for the movement of devotees. Construction will obstruct parking facilities for devotees. No marriage hall can be constructed without plan approval from the competent authority, in consonance with building rules and other applicable laws. Even before obtaining such approvals, temple funds were released.”
The Bench held: “A reading of Hindu law commentaries makes it clear that charity in religious purpose is essential. Nowhere does it prescribe commercial benefit or financial returns for acts carried out as ‘religious purposes’. Hence, in the absence of any element of charity (charity being an important facet of Hindu religion) involved in this scheme, it cannot be termed a religious purpose under Section 66 of the Act.”
The judges added: “Temple funds are collected from donations by devotees and from immovable properties gifted to the deity/temple. They are to be used only for religious purposes: celebrating temple festivals, maintenance and development of the temple or group of temples. Temple funds cannot be treated as public or government funds. They are exclusive contributions of Hindu religious people, given out of their emotional and spiritual attachment to the temples, the deities and Hindu customs, practices or ideologies.”
The Court concluded that temple funds cannot be used for common purposes. Trustees have an onerous duty in maintaining temples and temple funds. “Deity being a minor, trustees bear responsibility, and any misuse of temple funds would attract prosecution and recovery from those responsible. If HR & CE authorities misuse funds, they must be held accountable, and the misused or misappropriated funds recovered from them or from the government as the case may be.”
The Bench further clarified that government control under the HR & CE Act must remain within the “ambit and four corners of religious purposes”. Expanding interpretation of the Act to non-religious purposes would be null and void, leading to abuse of temple funds and infringement of devotees’ religious rights.
The judges concluded: “This Court has no hesitation in holding that the government’s decision to construct marriage halls for the purpose of renting them out for functions is in violation of the provisions of the HR & CE Act, 1959, and does not fall within the definition of ‘religious purposes’.”
Temple activist T.R. Ramesh hailed the judgment in a post on X, stating: “They have enumerated how temple funds can be utilised only for religious purposes – the charities should also have a religious basis. The misfits and looters in the @tnhrcedept wanted to issue lucrative contracts at the cost of temple funds and properties. Their Lordships’ well-reasoned and detailed order has halted the greedy activities of @tnhrcedept officials. Today, we can rely only on the Courts and the Hon’ble Judges who stand for Dharma, boldly protecting our temple traditions and properties.”
https://twitter.com/trramesh/status/1960503982939615322
There have been earlier High Court orders on similar issues, but the Tamil Nadu government has consistently ignored them when it comes to diverting surplus temple funds, instead of assisting revenue-less ancient temples in villages.
Critics argue that the DMK government is more interested in siphoning temple funds by various means than in generating state revenue through effective policies. While its leaders regularly deride Hindutva, they are content to spend money collected from Hindu devotees. DMK and its allies, along with several so-called Dravidian outfits, openly attack Hindu beliefs; Deputy Chief Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin even called for the eradication of Sanatana Dharma. DMK leaders do not participate in Hindu temple festivals or rituals but enthusiastically celebrate Christian and Muslim festivals. This, critics say, exposes the hypocritical face of the Dravidian establishment, which must be questioned for its anti-Hindutva stance and policy decisions.
Comments