2026 Supreme(Mad) 941

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT 
ANITA SUMANTH, C.KUMARAPPAN, JJ. 
A.V.B.Prabhu - Petitioner 
Versus
The Secretary to Government – Respondent 
W.P.(MD)Nos.23501 & 22596 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD)No.20782 of 2025 W.P.(MD)No.23501 of 2025 
Decided On : 23-01-2026 

State authorities cannot unilaterally usurp the managerial role of an established religious institution's trustees to implement infrastructure projects. Temple funds, particularly surpluses, must follow strict budgetary allocation and statutory priority, ensuring fiduciary accountability and compliance with constitutional principles regarding the administration of religious denominations.

Headnote:(A) Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 - Sections 23, 35, 36, 46, 47, 66, and 86 - Public Interest Litigation - Maintainability - Fiduciary duty - Court's parens patriae jurisdiction - Exercising jurisdiction in safeguarding temple properties overrides general principles applicable in contractual matters. (Paras 34, 37)

(B) Administrative Law - Temple Administration - Role of Executive Officer - Rule of Executive Officer is temporary and meant to tide over specific administrative crises - Supersession of rights of administration cannot be of permanent nature - Continuous presence of Executive Officer over several decades without Board of Trustees is contrary to the scheme of the Act and precedents. (Paras 9, 103, 105)

(C) Financial Management - Budgeting - Statutory obligations - Section 86 requires annual budget with specific provisioning for maintenance, repairs, and renovation - Diversion of temple funds for infrastructural projects without adherence to the budgetary process, public disclosure, and approval of the Board of Trustees is illegal and ultra vires. (Paras 66, 68, 86, 95)

Facts of the case:
Two writ petitions were filed challenging government orders and work proceedings providing for extensive infrastructure developments in an ancient religious institution under the guise of an iconic project. The petitioners argued that these projects involved massive expenditure from the temple's accumulated surplus without proper authorization, disregarding statutory provisions and the role of the Board of Trustees, and that the executive authorities were usurping the management of the temple.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the state's intervention in temple administration must be limited to its regulatory role under the Constitution, and it cannot unilaterally decide on major structural changes or capital expenditure. The projects in question proceeded without proper budgetary approval and documentation. The role of the Executive Officer was found to be overstepping its intended temporary scope, and the absence of a properly constituted Board of Trustees for extended periods was deemed a failure of the statutory scheme. The court mandated the restoration of original temple structures where development caused unnecessary alteration.

Issues: 1) Whether public interest litigation is maintainable regarding construction projects within religious institutions. 2) Whether the state authorities have the legal mandate to unilaterally initiate and execute infrastructure projects using temple funds without the involvement of trustees. 3) The legality of the indefinite tenure of executive officers in place of trustees.

Ratio Decidendi: The administrative board is the primary authority to propose and sanction projects, while the regulator's role is one of general oversight. Expenditure must strictly adhere to the statutory priority of maintaining existing temple services and structures, and surplus funds cannot be diverted for commercial or infrastructure expansion without rigorous compliance with the budgetary process. The state cannot replace the collective decision-making of the trustees.

Result: Writ petitions allowed; impugned orders and proceedings quashed with consequential directions for restoration.

Table of Content
1. the state's unilateral undertaking of 'iconic project' constructions in temples without board of trustees' initiation and proper statutory budgeting constitutes a usurpation of management powers. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 50 , 51 , 53 , 54 , 56 , 57 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 64)
2. temple funds must be utilized following strict statutory priority (sections 35, 36, 86 of the hr & ce act) and require budgetary disclosure and trustee approval. (Para 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 70 , 71 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97)
3. the appointment of an executive officer must be temporary and transitional; the administration of a temple should revert to the board of trustees to maintain constitutional and statutory requirements. (Para 99 , 100 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 114)
4. development works in temples must align with historical, archaeological, and architectural preservation, requiring mandatory statutory permits and adherence to temple traditions. (Para 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 , 120 , 121 , 122 , 123)

ORDER :

DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.

A common order is passed in these two writ petitions as the cause of action is one and the same. Both writ petitions are stated to have been instituted in public interest. In W.P.(MD)No.22596 of 2025 challenge is to G.O.Ms.No. 135 dated 08.03.2024, which provides for various expenditures in respect of civil works, construction and allied work in the Shri Kallazhagar Temple (in short ‘Azhagar temple’ or ‘temple’).

2. In W.P.(MD)No.23501 of 2025, the challenge is to proceedings/work order dated 11.10.2024 issued by the Executive Officer in relation to the above civil works. The expenditures are stated to be part of the ‘Iconic Project’ (in short ‘project’), an initiative of the Government avowedly to provide for various facilities in ancient temples in the State of Tamil Nadu. The trustees of the temple have been impleaded as R4 to R6 in W.P.(MD)No.23501 of 2025. After hearing the parties in detail on 28.08.2025, this Court had granted an order of stay of new construction until further orders.

3. The submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners, represented by Mr.M.R.Venkatesan for Mr.RM.Arun Swaminathan and Mr.S.G.Vadiraj Anirudh, are as follows. Impugned G.O Ms.No.135, dated 08.03.2024 and proceedings dated 11.10.2024 allocate significant amounts of temple funds towards civil and allied works in the temple. The basis of such allocations are an announcement made by the Hon’ble Minister for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments on the floor of the Legislative Assembly.

4. The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (in short, ‘Act’) provides for overall superintendence of the State in respect of Hindu religious institutions. However such superintendence has to be in line with the mandate of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. The intervention of the State is limited and is expected to be proportionate to such restricted role.

5. It is only for the trustees of the temple to propose projects for improvements in the temple, particularly as the projects involve such huge financial repercussions. There is nothing to indicate that the trustees of the temple have applied their mind to the ‘Iconic Project’ in the name of which a sum of Rs.92 Crores (approx), reduced thereafter to Rs.40.00 crores under the impugned proceedings, has been allotted. Substantial temple funds are being diverted towards unnecessary purposes in the name of development. Hence, the very basis of the impugned Government order/proceedings is bad in law.

6. When the statute requires action to be carried out by a specific person, and in a particular manner, such an act must be performed by that the person alone and the trustees cannot delegate or rather, abdicate their functions in regard to maintenance and upkeep of the temple. For this proposition the petitioners rely on the judgmen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document