The Himachal Pradesh High Court issued a landmark judgment last week stating that temple funds can’t be used or misused by the government. The Division Bench of Justices Vivek Singh Thakur and Rakesh Kainthla held that “Temple funds belong to the deity, not to the state”.
The High Court was of the opinion that the deity is a juristic person, establishing very clearly that any misuse of temple funds belonging to the deity is tantamount to a criminal breach of trust.
The judgment thus drew a firm line between sacred trust and State treasury, restoring the autonomy and sanctity of temple administration. Mostly on the lines of Shiroor Mutt.
History of temple law in India
In the early 19th century, the East India Company set a precedent for State intervention in temple management by promulgating regulations to prevent the alleged misappropriation of temple funds. The British brought the Religious Endowments Act to India in 1863 when the colonisers established their rule over most of India, following the model established in Great Britain since 1840, where the State controlled religious institutions.
This was followed by the Madras Hindu Religious Endowment Act of 1923, which ostensibly aimed to provide for better governance & administration of certain Hindu religious bodies. Its real purpose was obviously different. Most believers are generous in their religious offerings and Hindus donate cash, kind and even gold. Needless to say that some Hindu deities are among the richest entities in the world.
Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple in Kerala, dedicated to Lord Vishnu, has a centuries-old underground vault with treasures worth an estimated Rs 1.2 lakh crore, making it the wealthiest temple in India. Tirumala Tirupati Venkateswara Temple in Andhra Pradesh receives hundreds of crores annually from its millions of devotees. The same is true for Shirdi Sai Baba Temple in Shirdi, Vaishno Devi Temple in Jammu and Kashmir and Golden Temple in Amritsar.
During India’s Independence, the fathers of the Constitution envisaged a non-colonised, free and independent nation, guided by the principles of “Sarva Dharma Sambhava” (all religions are equal). Yet, many colonial-era laws survived, including the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act 1951 (later included as Articles 25 and 26 in the Constitution) and the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1959.
Article 26 states that, subject to public order, morality and health, every religious denomination has the right to:
(a) establish and maintain institutions for religious & charitable purposes;
(b) manage its own affairs in matters of religion;
(c) own and acquire movable and immovable property; and
(d) administer such property in accordance with law.
However, a contradiction lies in its interpretation. Clauses (b) and (d) reveal that. While the right to manage a religious institution is a fundamental one that cannot be taken away by legislation, the administration of such property comes under the purview of any law passed by the government, as explicitly stated in Article 26.
Also read: Have we reached a stage where we can say we’re proud of India? The data says so
Control or conundrum
The colonial legacy has given rise to the debate that State control over Hindu temples amounts to discrimination and violates Articles 25 and 26, and casting aspersions on the concept of religious freedom and equality. It is only the Hindu Temples that come under the purview of government control, as minority religious institutions are governed by their own laws and are free to spend their money as they deem fit.
Many argue that temple revenues, being religious donations, should be managed by the community and not the State. These funds, they say, could be used for the promulgation and preservation of Hinduism, establishing educational institutions to impart knowledge on Hindu traditions, the Hindu way of life and social development.
Just as India’s educated elite have benefited from missionary-run schools shaped by a Western ethos, temple donations could be channelled constructively for the economic and educational upliftment of Hindus—particularly the underprivileged and underserved—given that over 70 per cent of Indians practice Hinduism.
The Himachal Pradesh bench seems to concur with the view that temples have long been “custodians of Hindu Culture” and can become “powerful catalysts” for the “transformation of modern Hindu Society”. In its judgment, the bench observed, “For temples to realise their transformative potential, a shift in mindset is required. Temple administrations, spiritual leaders, and the wider community must work together to create an inclusive, progressive, and socially responsible environment. By embracing their rich heritage of service and community engagement, temples can once again become the beating heart of a rejuvenated and dynamic Hindu society.”
By this reasoning, it is only fair that temples be allowed to spend their money as per their religious beliefs.
International customs
The precedent followed in many countries, including those where secularism is not explicitly enshrined in the Constitution as it is in ours, offers comparison. In the US, religious donations are generally used for a wide range of purposes—meeting the religious organisation’s operational costs, funding community programmes such as food banks, schools, and shelters. Most of these contributions are also eligible for tax deductions, provided the religious organisation is a registered 501(c)(3) regulation and donations cannot be made in exchange for goods or services.
These funds often support missionary activities, including outreach to countries of the global south.
Who can forget John Allen Chau, the young American evangelist on a mission to convert the Sentinelese tribe in the Andaman & Nicobar Islands in 2018? Author of The Peacock Throne, Sujit Saraf said, “absurdity of it – that a missionary would travel all the way to the Andamans to stand and declare in English, to a tribe far older than Christianity, that ‘Jesus loves you and died for you’, was too delightful to pass up.”
In the UK, most religious institutions get tax exemptions, and their money is distributed much like that in the US.
Pilgrims to Mecca & Medina also make voluntary donations and compulsory charity, which is used to help those in need and for the construction of mosques and religious schools.
None of these donated funds is used for public welfare or appropriated by the State.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court’s order is progressive and reflects the sentiments of the people. “The Devotees offer donations for the temples—and through them, to the Divine—with the clear belief that these will support the care of deities, maintain temple spaces and promote Sanatana Dharma,” the court said. Hopefully, this will open doors to larger discussions on the utilisation of temple wealth.
Meenakashi Lekhi is a BJP leader, lawyer and social activist. Her X handle is @M_Lekhi. Views are personal.
(Edited by Ratan Priya)