In a landmark ruling, the high court drew a sharp line between the sacred and administrative powers. While acknowledging the state’s right to oversee administration of temples, the court made it clear that donations and revenues offered to Hindu temples are sacrosanct, meant for religious purposes alone, and not to be absorbed into the state’s welfare machinery.
The case arose from a petition filed to ensure compliance with the Himachal Pradesh Hindu Public Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1984, a state law that governs the administration, finances, and property of temples across Himachal Pradesh.
The petitioner alleged widespread violations of statutory obligations under the Act particularly in budgeting, maintenance of accounts, and expenditure; he sought judicial directions to enforce financial accountability.
On 10 October, five months after reserving its judgment, the high court stated emphatically, “Funds belong to the deity, not to the government. Trustees are only custodians. Any misuse of temple funds amounts to criminal breach of trust.”
Also Read: Poll season on horizon, Sabarimala gold ‘theft’ stirs the pot in Kerala. UDF takes on ruling LDF
The 1984 Act
The stated objective of the Himachal Pradesh Hindu Public Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1984, is to provide for the “protection and preservation of properties appertaining to such institutions and endowments and for the proper performance of puja and other rituals, and for the health, safety and convenience of worshippers, disciples and pilgrims”.
The Act applies to all Hindu public religious institutions, including temples, maths, and endowments established for religious purposes. The definition is broad—it covers all property, movable and immovable, belonging to or endowed for the maintenance, worship, or improvement of a temple.
The Act empowers the state government to appoint a commissioner and subordinate officers to supervise and regulate temple administration. Trustees are bound to comply with the Act and any directions issued under it. Transfers or alienation of temple properties, such as through sale, mortgage, or lease, require prior sanction from the commissioner, and any unauthorised transfer is deemed void.
Sections 17, 22, and 23 of the Act are central to its operation. Section 17 defines the permissible purposes for which temple funds may be used. Section 22 mandates the preparation of an annual budget detailing income and expected expenditure. And section 23 requires the maintenance of accounts and their annual audit, ensuring that all donations are properly recorded and spent in accordance with the institution’s objectives.
Temples are further required to maintain registers of property, trustees, and endowments, and make their accounts publicly accessible, thereby promoting transparency and restoring trust among devotees.
Drawing a line around temple funds
In its order this week, the Himachal Pradesh High Court gave teeth to the 1984 Act. It directed the state to ensure temple trusts maintain accounts and conduct regular audits of their finances. The judgment laid out a comprehensive roadmap for temple trusts to have transparency and accountability in their financial decisions.
The court categorically prohibited the use of temple funds for general welfare schemes or infrastructure unrelated to the temple’s religious purpose. “Every rupee of temple funds must be used for the temple’s religious purpose or dharmic charity. It cannot be treated as general revenue for the state.”
Among the prohibited expenditures are construction of roads, bridges, or public utilities that are the state’s responsibility, investing in private enterprises or profit-driven ventures, operating shops or hotels unconnected with pilgrim welfare, purchasing vehicles or gifts for officials or dignitaries. Lastly, the high court ruled out funding social, political, or interfaith events not tied to temple purposes.
The court underlined that devotees contribute offerings with faith that the money will preserve the sanctity of worship, support the temple’s upkeep, and propagate “Sanatan Dharma”—not to underwrite the state’s welfare obligations.
The judgment made transparency a legal mandate, ruling that all temples must maintain proper books of accounts, to be audited annually and these audit summaries and monthly income-expenditure statements must be publicly displayed on notice boards or official websites. Trustees found guilty of misuse would be personally liable, and misused sums recoverable from their own funds.
After fulfilling ritual and maintenance obligations, temple funds may be used to promote religious education, Vedic studies, and spiritual training; establish and maintain schools, colleges, and hospitals (including Ayurveda institutions).
They may also be used to support destitute homes, orphanages, and disaster relief undertaken in the spirit of Dharma, not as government contributions.
State regulation vs religious autonomy
The ruling rests on a delicate constitutional balance under Article 25(2)(a) of the Indian Constitution, which permits the state to regulate the secular aspects of religion—such as financial and administrative management—while allowing the temple to safeguard the religious practices.
By reaffirming that Hinduism is more “a spiritual philosophy and ethical way of living than a centralised religion,” the court emphasised the essence of Hindu religion “lies not in rigid dogma or a single prophet or scripture, but in a profound way of understanding life, consciousness, and the universe”.
The doctrine of “deity as juristic person,” long recognised by the Supreme Court, forms the moral and legal cornerstone: Temple wealth belongs to the deity, not to the trustees, not to the state.
Pushback against state paternalism
The Himachal Pradesh High Court’s decision echoes a broader judicial movement across India—where courts are increasingly reining in the government’s tendency to treat temple revenues as quasi-public funds.
In August 2025, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court struck down a Tamil Nadu government order authorising the use of temple funds to build wedding halls. The bench ruled that such projects have no “nexus with worship, pilgrimage, or dharmic purpose”.
“Temple funds are offerings to the deity. They cannot be used to construct facilities unrelated to worship,” the court observed. This judgment reaffirmed an earlier tradition in Tamil Nadu jurisprudence that temple money, even if in surplus, cannot be diverted for general infrastructure or political patronage.
In the Ahobilam Temple case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court ruling, later upheld by the Supreme Court, said that excessive government interference such as appointing executive officers to temples belonging to specific denominations violated Article 26, which protects the right of religious denominations to manage their own affairs.
Over the decades, the Supreme Court has repeatedly clarified that while states may regulate the administration of temples, they cannot appropriate ownership or direct religious funds toward secular objectives. In various rulings interpreting Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Acts across states, the apex court has emphasised that temple properties and revenues must be managed “only for the benefit of the deity and the faithful”.
(Edited by Viny Mishra)
Also read: Why Sukhu govt plan to fund schemes using temple contributions may be the perfect weapon for BJP