SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(HP) 1279

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Vivek Singh Thakur, Rakesh Kainthla, JJ.
Kashmir Chand Shadyal - Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No.1834 of 2018
Decided On : 10-10-2025

Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Nitin Thakur and Mr. Udit Shaurya Kaushik, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Pawan Kumar Nadda, Additional Advocates General and Mr. S.D. Vasudeva and Ms Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocates General, Mr. Lokender Thakur Advs.

Temple funds must be used solely for dharmic purposes promoting Hinduism's core principles like equality and service; detailed permitted/prohibited expenditures, audits, public disclosure mandated to prevent misuse by trustees or State.

Headnote:(A) Hindu Public Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1984 - Sections 17, 22, 23 - Constitution of India - Articles 25(2), 226 - Writ petition under Article 226 seeking mandamus directing authorities to ensure compliance with Act provisions on budget preparation (Section 22), accounts maintenance (Section 23), and incurring expenditure (Section 17) - Court elaborates essence of Hinduism as way of life based on tolerance, monistic idealism, core principles like Vedanta, Karma, Moksha, ethics; historical role of temples in society, education, welfare, culture, freedom struggle; issues directions specifying 31 permissible expenditures for propagation of religion, infrastructure, education, charity, social reform, eradicating discrimination; 8 prohibited areas including government schemes, non-temple public works; mandates public display of accounts, annual audit publication, personal liability and recovery for misuse as criminal breach of trust since funds belong to deity. (Paras 1, 2-38, 39-43)

(B) Hinduism - Not confined to narrow religious practices but comprehensive way of life; embraces diverse sects, philosophies; promotes equality, rejects caste discrimination; State duty under Article 25(2) to regulate secular activities of religious institutions, reform society, ensure funds propagation of true tenets aligned with Constitution. (Paras 7-14, 21-36)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner filed writ petition invoking Article 226 praying for mandamus to respondents to strictly comply with Act provisions on budget, accounts, and expenditure for better administration of religious institutions.

Findings of Court:
Temple funds to be utilized only for specified dharmic, religious, charitable purposes promoting core principles; detailed lists of permitted and prohibited expenditures issued; monthly income/expenditure, projects, audit summaries to be publicly displayed; trustees personally liable for misuse.

Issues: Legitimate use of devotee donations to temples; ensuring compliance with Section 17 for propagation of Hindu religion; preventing fund diversion by State authorities.

Ratio Decidendi: Funds donated to temples for deity's purposes; trustees mere custodians; expenditure under Section 17 limited to health/safety of worshippers, propagation per tenets post adequate ritual performance; must align with Hinduism's core - equality, service, reform; State mandated to regulate for social welfare without performing religious functions or diverting to non-dharmic uses.

Result: Petition disposed of along with pending applications in terms of directions issued.

Table of Content
1. mandamus for act compliance on budgets, accounts, expenditure. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. hinduism as tolerant, inclusive way of life. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
3. temples' pivotal historical societal roles. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
4. caste discrimination antithetical to true dharma. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
5. temples for modern social, cultural progress. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
6. state's art.25 power for reforms. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38)
7. section 17 expenditures for genuine propagation. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42)
8. strict dharmic use of temple funds. (Para 43)

JUDGMENT :
Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge

Petitioner, invoking provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has filed the present Writ Petition, praying mainly for the following relief:

“(i) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent- authorities to ensure strict compliance of the Act specifically provisions pertaining to preparation of budget (Section 22), maintenance of accounts (Section 23) and incurring of expenditure (Section 17)”

2. The Legislature of Himachal Pradesh has enacted the Hindu Public Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for regulating the affairs of the Hindu Public Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments. The objects and reasons of the Act are as under:

(i) An Act to provide for better administration of Hindu Public Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments and for the protection and preservation of properties appertaining to such institutions and endowments.

(ii) The Himachal Pradesh Hindu Public Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1984 has been enacted to provide for better administration including the proper performance of puja and other rituals securing health, safety and convenience of worshippers, disciples and pilgrims, restricting the alienation and leasing of immovable property of the institution for purposes of necessary or beneficial to the said institution and fulfilling the purposes for which the trust has been created.

3. The Act deals with Hindu Public Charitable Endowments and Religious Institutions; however, institutions and endowments included in Schedule I of the Act are mainly Temples and Maths.

4. The term Hindu Public Religious Institution and temple have been defined as under:

(a) "Hindu Public Religious Institution" means a math, temple and endowment attached thereto or a specific endowment, established with a religious object for a public purpose and includes-

(i) all property movable or immovable belonging to or given or endowed for worship in, maintenance or improvement of, additions to, a math or temple, for the performance of any service or charity connected therewith;

(ii) the idols installed in the math or temple, clothes, ornaments and things for decoration etc.; and

(iii) religious institution under the direct control of the State Government;

but does not include,-

(i) such private religious maths or temples in which the public are not interested; and

(ii) the gifts of the property made as personal gifts to the mahant, service-holder or other employee of a religious institution;

(g) "math" means a math as understood under Hindu law;

Xxxx

(l) "temple" means a place, by whatever designation known, used as a place of public religious worship, and dedicated to, or for the benefit of, or used as of right by, the Hindu community or any section thereof as a place of public religious worship;

5. The Act defines “Hindu” in Section 1 as under:

(i) Explanation to sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Act provides that the word “Hindu” shall mean the persons contemplated under clause (a) and clause (b) of sub- section (1) of Section 2 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the expression “Hindu” Public Religious Institution and Charitable Endowment” shall be construed accordingly.

6. Since the Act refers to the Hindu Marriage Act to determine the meaning of Hindu; hence, it is







Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top