2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 9087

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Anita Sumanth, C. Kumarappan, JJ
A.V.B. Prabhu – Appellant
Versus
Secretary to Government, Religious Endowments Department, Government of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
W.P.(MD)No.23501 of 2025|W.P.(MD)No.22596 of 2025

The management of religious institutions and their funds rests with the board of trustees; the state’s role is restricted to superintendence, and it cannot unilaterally initiate construction projects or divert temple surpluses without adhering to mandatory budgeting, auditing, and administrative rules of the governing statute.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 25 and 26 - Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 - Sections 23, 35, 36, 46, 47, 86, 87, 92, 93, 116(2)(x) - Management and Preservation of Properties of Religious Institutions Rules, 1964 - Utilization of Surplus Funds Rules - Conditions for Appointment of Executive Officers Rules, 2015 - Appointment of Auditor Rules - Temple management - Fiduciary responsibility of the State - Validity of administrative usurpation of temple administration - Projects and construction - Proper budgeting and fund utilization. (Paras 4, 62-64, 84, 86, 104-105)

(B) Judicial Review - Parens Patriae jurisdiction - The court exercises this jurisdiction to safeguard the properties and interests of deities - State intervention must be proportionate and restricted to regulatory roles - Decisions regarding temple improvements must emanate from the board of trustees, not the state - Unauthorized diversion of accumulated surpluses without following statutory budget procedures is illegal. (Paras 37, 43, 64, 87, 97)

(C) Administrative Law - Executive Officers - Role is temporary and meant to address specific exigencies, not for permanent, indefinite tenure - Continued presence without statutory boards of trustees is contrary to the scheme of the Act and established judicial pronouncements. (Paras 9, 102-103)

Facts of the case:
The petitions challenged government orders and proceedings authorizing civil and commercial construction projects within a religious complex. Petitioners alleged that such projects were conceived by the state without consultation with the statutory board of trustees, involved improper diversion of accumulated temple funds, lacked mandatory architectural and heritage approvals, and were managed by an executive officer holding office for decades without transparency in budgeting or auditing.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the impugned government order and proceedings were vitiated by procedural impropriety, lack of statutory authority, and failure to involve the board of trustees in conceptualizing and approving works. The court found that temple funds were spent without proper budgeting and disclosure as mandated by the Act and relevant rules. The prolonged appointment of the executive officer was found to be contrary to the scope of his role as interpreted by judicial pronouncements.

Issues: 1. Whether the government-led infrastructure projects within the temple complex are legally valid. 2. Whether the utilization of temple funds for such projects aligns with the statutory scheme of priorities. 3. Whether the indefinite continuation of an appointed executive officer is permissible under the governing statute.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the state’s role is restricted to general superintendence, and it cannot unilaterally usurp the functions of the board of trustees to initiate massive construction projects. Furthermore, the mandatory financial discipline—specifically the requirement to budget expenditures and obtain approval through a board—was violated, necessitating the quashing of the impugned orders to protect the sanctity and property of the religious institution.

Result: Both writ petitions allowed. The impugned Government Order and proceedings were quashed with specific directions for the constitution of a board of trustees and the restoration of temple property.

Table of Content
1. state intervention in temples must align with articles 25 and 26 constitution. (Para 1 , 2 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56)
2. temple funds must follow statutory spending priority and budgeting requirements. (Para 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97)
3. executive officers' appointment must be temporary and not usurp trustees' roles. (Para 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 114)
4. developmental activities must preserve temple sanctity and architectural heritage. (Para 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 , 120 , 121 , 122 , 123)

COMMON ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.)

1.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 judgment in Purtabpore Co., Ltd., vs. Cane Commissioner of Bihar and others , 1AIR 1970 SC 1896, particularly para 11 thereof.

7. Sections 35 , 36, 66, 67 and 86 of the HR & CE Act as well as the ‘Maintenance of Incorporated Devaswoms out of Devaswoms Fund Rules’, ‘Utilization of Surplus Funds Rules’ and other Rules, stipulate that the incurrence of expenditure for tem

Click Here to Read the rest of this document