Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 56088
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, G.ARUL MURUGAN, JJ
Senthil Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
W.P(MD)Nos.21066 | W.P(MD)No.22395 | W.P(MD)No.22510 | W.P(MD)No.22517 | W.P(MD)No.22563
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.RM.Arun Swaminathan, Mr.N.Jeyaram Sidharth, Mr.K.R.Laxman, Mr.P.M.Vishnuvarthanan
For the Respondents: Mr.R.Shanmugasundaram Senior Counsel for Mr.P.Subbaraj Special Government Pleader
Utilization of surplus temple funds must adhere strictly to religious purposes, as commercial endeavors contradict the statutory objectives under Hindu law.
Headnote:(A) Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 - Sections 35, 36, 36-A, and 66 - Utilization of temple funds for constructing marriage halls and commercial entities challenged as illegal and unconstitutional - Court held that temple funds must be used solely for religious purposes and not for profit-making ventures - Existing judicial precedents reinforce that surplus funds cannot be diverted outside of stipulated charitable objectives - Impugned notifications quashed. (Paras 1-59)
(B) Legal principle of religious purpose - The Court clarified that the construction of wedding venues for commercial purposes does not align with the religious or charitable objectives under the Act, reaffirming that any annotations to the contrary would infringe on the donor's intent and the statutory mandate protecting the sanctity of temple funds. (Paras 20-46)
(C) Procedural adherence is paramount - The Government's failure to follow the statutory requirements for utilizing surplus funds under the Act renders any such actions unauthorized and impermissible. (Paras 55-58)
Facts of the case:
Multiple writ petitions filed challenging Government notifications for utilizing surplus temple funds for non-religious commercial constructions, specifically marriage halls. The petitioners argued that these actions undermined Hindu law due to their profit-oriented nature.
Findings of Court:
The impugned Government Orders are quashed for violating statutory provisions and principles delineated in Hindu law regarding temple funds.
Issues: The legality of using temple funds for non-religious purposes and the compliance with statutory requirements when utilizing surplus funds.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that surplus funds must only be allocated for recognized religious purposes, supported by legislative texts and judicial precedent, indicating a stark prohibition against commercial applications of such funds.
Result: Writ Petitions allowed; impugned notifications quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petitions filed to quash government notifications. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. notifications reveal construction for commercial purposes. (Para 3) |
| 3. previous similar issues considered in earlier judgments. (Para 4) |
COMMON ORDER
(Judgment of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
These batch of writ petitions have been instituted seeking quashment of the notification published by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department in their official website stating that from and out of the surplus funds of the temple, the Government have decided to construct the Marriage halls, Commercial shops, Educational Institutions and others. The notification reveals that the HR & CE Department has proposed to construct several Marriage Halls, Commercial complexes etc., from and out of the budget funds and surplus funds of the temples in some other places.
2. At the outset, the notification reveals that a commercial venture has been undertaken by the HR & CE for construction of various buildings for commercial purposes.
3. The issues regarding construction of marriage halls through surplus temple funds have been elaborately considered by this Court in a batch of writ petitions in W.P(MD)No.5893 of 2025 etc., and Judgment was delivered on 19.08.2025. The issues raised in the present writ petitions are similar to that of the batch of writ petitions disposed of by this Court. Further, the issues raised in the present writ petitions are not res integra. Thus, the principles laid down already is to be followed by this Court. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment reads as under:-
"12.The utilization of temple funds is provided under Section 35 of the Act, 1959. It deals with “the authority of trustee to incur expenditure for securing health, etc., of pilgrims and worshippers and training of archakas etc”, which reads as follows:
“35. Authority of trustee to incur expenditure for securing health etc., of pilgrims and worshippers and for training of archakas, etc., —
(1) The trustee of a religious institution may, out of the funds in his charge, after making adequate provision for the purposes referred to in sub-section (2) of section 86, incur expenditure—
(a) on arrangements for securing the health, safety or convenience of disciples, pilgrims or worshippers resorting to the institution ; and
(b) for the training of archakas, Adhyapakas, vedaparayanikas and othuvars.
(2) In incurring such expenditure, the trustee of the religious institution other than a math or a specific endowment attached to a math shall be guided by such general or special instructions as may be given by the Commissioner.”
13. Section 35 (1) of the Act, 1959 contemplates that the trustee of a religious institution may, out of funds in his charge, after making adequate provision for the purposes referred to in sub-Section (2) of Section 86 incur expenditure.
14. Section 35 of the Act, 1959 in clear terms indicates that the expenditure must be in connection with the arrangements for securing the health, safety or convenience of disciples, pilgrims or worshippers resorting to the institution. It does not speak about construction of a marriage hall for commercial purposes. Section 35 cannot be read in isolation. Section 36 -A of the Act, 1959, speaks regarding utilization of surplus funds for Hindu marriages. The proposed construction of marriage halls are for renting it out to the Hindus for celebrating marriage functions.
15. Section 36 of the Act, 1959, deals with the “Utilization of surplus funds”, which reads as follows:
“36. Utilisation of surplus funds.— With the previous sanction of 1[the Commissioner], and subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed, the trustee of a religious institutions may appropriate for any of the purposes specified in sub- section (1) of section 66—
(i) any portion of the accumulated surplus of such institution, and
(ii) if, after making adequate provision for the purposes referred to in subsection
