Back
MADRAS HIGH COURT
S.M.Subramaniam and G.Arul Murugan, JJ.
Rama Ravikumar and Ors. – Petitioner
versus
State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. – Respondent
W.P(MD)Nos.5893, 15498, 17666, 21966 and 21967 of 2025, W.M.P(MD)Nos.4301, 4302, 4303, 11725, 11726, 13502, 13504, 13505, 17048, 17049, 17052 and 17053 of 2025
Decided on 19.8.2025
Counsel for the Parties:
In W.P(MD)No.5893 of 2025:
For the Petitioners: Mr. RM. Arun Swaminathan
For the Respondent Nos.1 & 2:Mr. Veera. Kathiravan Additional Advocate General Assisted, Mr. P. Subbaraj, Special Government Pleader (HR & CE)
For the Respondent No.3: Mr. V. Chandra Sekar
In W.P(MD)No.15498 of 2025:
For the Petitioners: Mr. RM. Arun Swaminathan
For the Respondent No.1:Mr. Veera. Kathiravan, Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr. P. Subbaraj, Special Government Pleader (HR & CE)
For the Respondent No.2: Mr. A.K. Sriram
W.P(MD)No.17666 of 2025:
For the Petitioners: Mr. RM. Arun Swaminathan
For the Respondent No.1 & 2:Mr. Veera. Kathiravan, Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr. P. Subbaraj, Special Government Pleader (HR & CE)
For the Respondent No.2: Mr. A.K. Sriram, Senior Counsel for Mr. R.Murali
W.P(MD)No.21966 of 2025:
For the Petitioners: Mr. RM. Arun Swaminathan
For the Respondent No.1:Mr. Veera. Kathiravan, Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr. P. Subbaraj, Special Government Pleader (HR & CE)
For the Respondent No.2 & 3: Mr. R. Murali
W.P(MD)No.21967 of 2025:
For the Petitioners: Mr. RM. Arun Swaminathan
For the Respondent No.1:Mr. Veera. Kathiravan, Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr. P. Subbaraj, Special Government Pleader (HR & CE)
For the Respondent No.2 and 3: Mr. R. Murali
IMPORTANT POINT
Temple funds cannot be utilized as public fund or Government fund for common purposes – Government has no powers to utilize funds for any other purpose other than purpose for which valuables are donated by devotees/donors to temple.
Headnote:
(A) Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 [Tamil Nadu] – Sections 35, 36 and 66 – Temple Funds – Misutilisation of – Government has no powers to utilize funds for any other purpose other than purpose for which valuables are donated by devotees/donors to temple – Government under the Act is bound to utilize temple funds only for maintenance and development of temple and for connected religious purposes – They have no authority or powers to divert funds for any other purposes under name of religion which would certainly defeat very objectives of the Act and Rules and also wishes of donors/devotees, who are all donating movable, immovable properties in favour of deity out of their emotional and spiritual attachment with temples. (Paras 35 and 41)
(B) Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 [Tamil Nadu] – Sections 35, 36 and 66 – Utilization of Surplus Funds Rules, 1960 – Rule 7 – Temple Funds – Misutilisation of – Temple funds cannot be utilized as public fund or Government fund for common purposes – Trustees have important role in maintenance of temples and temple funds – Deity being a minor, trustees responsibility is onerous and any misutilization or abuse of temple funds for any other purposes would attract prosecution and recovery from persons, who have committed such irregularities or illegalities – Government decision for construction of marriage halls for the purpose of renting it out for marriage functions is in violation of provisions of Act, 1959 and Rules and does not fall within definition of “religious purposes” – Impugned Government Orders quashed. (Paras 42, 58 and 59)
Result: Writ Petitions allowed.
ORDER (COMMON)
S.M. Subramaniam, J.—The Writ Petitions on hand have been instituted to assail the Government Orders issued in G.O.(Ms)No.98, G.O.(Ms)No.154, G.O.(Ms)No.343, G.O.(Ms) No.556 and G.O.(Ms)No.514 of the Department of Tourism, Culture and Endowments Department, dated 03.03.2023, 16.05.2025, 26.9.2024, 24.12.2024 and 18.12.2024 respectively, granting permission for construction of marriage hall by utilizing the temple funds belonging to five different temples situated in different places.
2. A perusal of the Government Orders impugned reveals that the Hon’ble Minister for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, had announced in the Floor of the Assembly during the Budget Speech that the Government had decided to construct marriage halls in 27 temples by spending the temple funds to the tune of Rs.80 crores. Arulmigu Kaalakatheeswarar Abirami Amman Temple is one amongst the 27 temples and based on the announcement made in the Floor of the Legislative Assembly, the impugned Government Orders came to be issued.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly contend that the Government has no jurisdiction to utilize the temple funds or surplus funds for the construction of marriage halls under the provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The construction of marriage halls are for commercial purposes, as the Government made it clear that the marriage halls proposed to be constructed will be let out to the Hindus for conducting marriage functions. Therefore, temple funds cannot be utilized for commercial purposes and the impugned orders are in violation of Sections 35, 36 and 66 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (in short hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1959’).
4. The petitioner further states that the impugned Government Orders disclose that the funds are borrowed from other temples for the construction of marriage halls, but the terms and conditions of such borrowal of temple funds has not been stipulated in the Government Orders. At the outset, the Government Orders are ambiguous in respect of utilization of temple funds for construction of marriage halls and more specifically, the utilization of temple funds for commercial purposes is not contemplated under the Act, 1959.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that no building plan permission has been obtained for the construction of marriage halls in the proposed temple lands. These temple lands situated adjacent to the temples, are congested and now being utilized for the movement of devotees, who all are visiting the temple. It will affect the parking facilities to be provided for the devotees nearby the temple. No marriage hall can be constructed without obtaining building plan approval from the competent authority, which should be in consonance with the provisions of the building construction rules, regulations and other relating laws. It is further contended that even before obtaining building plan approval, the temple funds are released.
6. In W.P(MD)No.21966 of 2025, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the marriage hall is proposed to be constructed 150 kilometers away from Palani, Arulmighu Dhandayuthapani Swami Devasthanam, Palani, Dindigul District, specifically at Andipatti, Theni District. Therefore, the construction of the marriage hall would not anyway be beneficial to the Arulmighu Dhandayuthapani Swami Devasthanam at Palani.
7. In W.P(MD)No.21967 of 2025, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the marriage hall is proposed to be constructed 110 kilometers away from Palani, Arulmighu Dhandayuthapani Swami Devasthanam, Palani, Dindigul District at Uthamapalayam, Theni District. Therefore, the construction of marriage hall would not anyway be beneficial to the Arulmighu Dhandayuthapani Swami Devasthanam at Palani.
8. The learned Additional Advocat
