The Supreme Court on Monday recalled its April 2025 order that had asked petitioners challenging various Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) laws to approach respective State High Courts, and decided to hear the constitutional challenge on merits itself.
A Bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma passed the order while allowing review petitions filed against its earlier direction.
Reportedly, the Court will now examine the validity of provisions governing State control over Hindu temples and religious institutions in Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Puducherry.
The batch of petitions, pending since 2012, challenges multiple provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, the Pondicherry Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1972, and the Telangana Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1987.
The petitioners have contended that the provisions violate Articles 14, 19, 25, 26 and 31A of the Constitution by granting excessive State control over Hindu religious institutions.
The challenge specifically targets provisions dealing with the powers of Commissioners, appointment and removal of trustees, appointment of executive officers, utilisation of temple surplus funds, alienation of temple property, audits, levy of government contributions and restrictions on judicial remedies.
Among the provisions under challenge in the Tamil Nadu HR&CE Act are Sections 23 and 24 relating to the powers of Commissioners and entry into religious institutions, Sections 35 and 36 dealing with utilisation of temple funds, Section 45 concerning appointment of Executive Officers, Sections 47 to 53 governing trustees and their removal, Section 92 relating to annual contribution payments to the government, and Sections 108 and 111 which bar certain legal challenges against temple administration decisions.
The Andhra Pradesh law is being challenged over provisions empowering Commissioners and Executive Officers, appointment of Boards of Trustees, powers over Maths and Mathadhipathis, contribution assessments and inquiry powers under the Endowments Department.
The Puducherry Act provisions under challenge include powers of Commissioners, appointment of trustees and executive officers, financial control, contributions, budgeting and audits of religious institutions.
In its April 2025 order, the Supreme Court had observed that the schemes of the State enactments “may be distinct” and therefore directed the petitioners to move the respective High Courts for adjudication.
The Bench had said that High Courts would be better placed to consider the socio-economic, cultural, religious and historical dimensions of the dispute and had also left open the possibility of constituting expert committees for assistance.
However, in the review petitions, the petitioners argued that the earlier order proceeded on an incorrect assumption that the laws of Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Puducherry were substantially different.
According to them, all the enactments trace their origin to the earlier Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments framework and contain similar provisions relating to executive officers, powers of Commissioners, temple entry, audits and levy of contributions.
The petitioners further submitted that the matter had remained pending before the Supreme Court for over 13 years and that directing them to approach multiple High Courts at this stage would result in multiplicity of proceedings and serious hardship.
They also argued that Article 32 itself is a fundamental right enabling citizens to directly approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of constitutional rights.
The review petitions additionally relied upon earlier judicial precedents, including the Shirur Mutt case, where provisions of earlier HR&CE laws were struck down and later affirmed by the Supreme Court. The petitioners alleged that similar provisions were subsequently reintroduced through later enactments.
Senior Advocates CS Vaidyanathan and Guru Krishnakumar appeared for the petitioners along with advocates Akshay Nagarajan and Suvidutt Sundaram. Dr Subramanian Swamy also appeared as petitioner-in-person in the matter.
