In another verdict that would discourage the appointment of fit persons instead of trustees to manage temple affairs, a single judge of the Madras High Court has made it clear that the office of a fit person of a temple is not a mere formality, but an interim arrangement under which the person steps into the shoes of the temple trustee. The judge said that a fit person should involve himself in the affairs of the temple and devote his full time to taking care of its day-to-day affairs.
The court was hearing a petition moved by R Tamilarasu of Kottiyal in Ariyalur, challenging the HR&CE Department’s July 10, 2026, order appointing the Executive Officer (EO) as the fit person to manage the affairs of the temple in Ariyalur instead of the trustees.
In the order dated September 3 but pronounced on October 16, the judge said that the customs and usages of a temple are not normally within the knowledge of a fit person who is a stranger to the temple. He said, “This results in the temple losing its identity. When the customs and religious activities are not carried out in a religious manner, the temple suffers from poor maintenance and neglect. The constitutional rights of the devotees, including their entitlement to freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess and practise their religion, will be affected.”
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a hereditary trustee of the Mariamman Thirukkoil, Kottiyal, Irungaiyur Village, Udayarpalayam Taluk, Ariyalur District (hereinafter referred to as the “subject Temple”), which is a small temple with no income. Under these circumstances, several allegations were raised against the petitioner by third parties. Based on the baseless allegations, charges were framed and, consequently, the impugned order was passed by the first respondent to replace the petitioner. However, no inquiry was conducted before the impugned order was passed. Hence, the petition was filed.
Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that, based on a complaint lodged by third parties, who were local villagers, regarding the alleged misappropriation of money by the petitioner, charges were framed and the impugned order was passed. After the order was passed, the third respondent, the Executive Officer, was appointed as the “fit person” of the subject Temple. The counsel further submitted that the Kumbabishegam of the temple had recently been duly conducted by the villagers and requested the court to pass appropriate orders.
In his eight-page order, Justice Krishnan Ramaswamy said, “In very many cases, this Court has expressed that appointing the Executive Officer as ‘fit person’ is not proper. The office of a fit person is not a mere formality. It is an interim arrangement, under which the person appointed steps into the shoes of the Trustee/Dharma Karta of the temple. He must, therefore, involve himself in the affairs of the temple and devote his full time to taking care of its day-to-day affairs. An Executive Officer, who is a full-time officer of the Department with other responsibilities, cannot be expected to give that kind of time and attention to the temple. If this aspect had been taken into consideration, the first respondent would have appointed one of the existing trustees as the ‘fit person’ of the subject Temple.”
The judge said, “The role of a Dharma Karta extends to the religious aspects, namely, organising and conducting poojas, festivals, and other rituals and customs in accordance with the Agamas and the usage of the temple. Under the HR&CE Act, the Executive Officer is appointed principally to manage the secular and financial affairs of the temple, and he is neither expected nor equipped to look after its religious affairs, which are purely non-secular activities. An Executive Officer can be appointed as a fit person, but such an appointment cannot be made as a matter of routine or convenience.”
The court noted that representatives of the villagers had appeared before it and expressed their interest in being appointed as the “fit person” of the subject Temple. They also submitted that the villagers had recently duly conducted the Kumbabishegam of the temple.
The judge reiterated that, in several cases, the appointment of EOs as fit persons had been found improper because the office of a fit person is not a mere formality. Rather, the fit person steps into the shoes of the trustee or Dharma Karta of the temple. The court said that a fit person might not be well acquainted with the customs and usages of a temple. When such a person fails to conduct religious affairs in the traditional manner, the customs gradually disappear over time. This ultimately results in the temple losing its identity.
The judge underlined the role of a fit person, saying that such a person should preferably be someone knowledgeable about the religious affairs of the temple concerned and able to devote more time to looking after its affairs.
The court said that, while the religious functions fall within the role of the Dharma Karta, under the HR&CE Act, the EO is appointed mainly to manage the secular and financial affairs of the temple and is neither expected nor equipped to look after its religious affairs.
The judge directed the HR&CE Department to choose a person from the local community who has knowledge of the religious affairs of the temple to be appointed as the fit person until the trustees are appointed. If no such person is available, the EO may be appointed as a fit person for a temporary period. The judge further directed local residents, if eligible, to apply for the post of fit person, adding that the authorities must consider their applications.
Until such an appointment is made, the petitioner is permitted to look after the religious affairs of the subject Temple. As far as the Executive Officer/fit person appointed by the first respondent is concerned, he can look after only the financial affairs of the subject Temple.
Reacting to the verdict, temple activist TR Ramesh wrote in a post on X: “This excellent order of the Learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court too would be ignored/disobeyed/deliberately violated by the misfits in the HR&CE Department, which exists only for the following reasons:
Going by the lousy track record of the Shameless, Corrupt and Inefficient @tnhrcedept in disobeying orders of the Courts –
This excellent order of the Learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court too would be ignored/ disobeyed/ deliberately violated by the misfits in the… pic.twitter.com/9uV0KxRARZ
— trramesh (@trramesh) October 18, 2026
Ramesh said: “To allow properties to be usurped by encroachers. To loot the surplus funds of temples for unlawful contracts and tenders. To take 16% of the temple income as fees for the lousy administration and useless audit. To ensure that the true income from temple, endowment and mutt lands is NEVER realised, to make c@mm1e rascals, vote-bank porukkis and missionary mafias happy. To weaken Hinduism by weakening the original purposes for which the temples were established.”
In a recent verdict in the Nagapattinam Sowriraja Perumal Temple case, Justice Krishnan Ramaswamy said, “It is highly shocking and surprising to note that since 2004, no board of trustees has been set up to manage the temple… It is practically impossible for a fit person who is a government servant to manage the temple comprehensively, as they can only devote their time during standard government working hours. This does not align with temple hours, when the temple normally opens between 5 and 10 am and reopens in the evening from 5 pm until closing at 10 pm.”
