Back
Refuses PIL Seeking Review of Wages for Priests in State-Controlled Temples
The on Monday declined to entertain a seeking the constitution of a judicial commission or expert committee to review wages, service benefits and working conditions of priests, sevadars and other temple staff across state-controlled temples in India. A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta expressed clear disinclination to intervene, orally cautioning the petitioner against meddling in temple affairs while permitting withdrawal of the petition with liberty to approach appropriate authorities.
The decision underscores the Court’s reluctance to entertain broad-brush petitions that seek structural reforms in religious administration without direct aggrieved parties before it. At the same time, it leaves open pathways for temple workers themselves to approach or labour forums for concrete relief.
Background of the Petition
, appearing in person, had approached the apex court through . The petition, styled as Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. (W.P.(C) No. 625/2026), sought directions to the Centre and all States to set up an expert body that would examine remuneration structures in Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments institutions. It further prayed for a declaration that priests and temple staff qualify as “employees” under .
The cause of action, according to the petitioner, arose on when he visited Varanasi, performed rudrabhishek at the state-controlled Kashi Vishwanath Temple and learnt first-hand that priests and staff were not receiving even the minimum wages prescribed for unskilled and semi-skilled workers. The plea also cited recent protests by priests and temple staff in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, as well as a circular issued by the Tamil Nadu government at the Dandayuthapani Swami Temple in Madurai that prohibited priests from accepting dakshina in aarti plates.
Petitioner’s Core Arguments and Evidence
Upadhyay framed the issue as one of nationwide systemic exploitation. He argued that once the State assumes administrative, economic and financial control over temples through , an necessarily arises. The denial of dignified wages, he contended, violated the right to livelihood under and ran counter to , particularly .
The petition stated:
“Petitioner submits that once the State assumes the administrative, economic and financial control over temples, an arises and denial of dignified wages to priests and temple staff violates the right to livelihood guaranteed under .”
Upadhyay further relied on observations of the underscoring the need for minimum wages so that temple employees could lead a dignified life. He highlighted alleged regulatory asymmetry: temples alone are subjected to comprehensive State control, whereas mosques and churches are not. Cost-of-living adjustments tied to the 2026 inflation index and claims of “marginalisation” of temple staff were also pressed.
’s Response and Oral Remarks
The bench was not inclined to entertain the petition. Justices Nath and Mehta made their position explicit during the hearing. They orally remarked:
“Mandiron ke pujari ke chakkar mein matt padiye (Don’t interfere in the affairs of temple priests). Aapko pata hai pujari kitna paisa kamate hai? (Do you know how much temple priests earn) We are not entertaining this.”
The Court further observed that the petitioner should not get into the affairs of priests as he may be unaware of their actual earnings. While initially inclined to dismiss the petition outright, the bench eventually allowed Upadhyay’s request to withdraw the matter with liberty to approach the appropriate authorities or forums. The petition was consequently dismissed as withdrawn.
The bench also clarified that persons directly aggrieved could approach the appropriate forum rather than invoking the Court’s writ jurisdiction under in its present form.
Legal and Constitutional Analysis
The order reflects well-settled principles governing the . The has in recent years insisted that petitions must be grounded in specific violations affecting defined classes of persons and that generalised grievances about policy or administration are best left to the executive or to exercising wider jurisdiction under .
By declining to constitute a judicial commission, the Court avoided stepping into the domain of religious endowments management—a sphere where State governments already exercise statutory powers through dedicated departments. The petitioner’s attempt to equate State control with an automatic was not tested on merits; yet the Court’s caution signals scepticism about broad-brush declarations that could unsettle long-standing practices of temple administration across States.
The argument regarding regulatory asymmetry between temples and other religious institutions, while politically resonant, did not compel judicial intervention. Courts have historically treated the regulation of Hindu religious institutions under State enactments as , a legacy of pre-independence legislation that survives constitutional scrutiny under . Any expansion of that regulatory umbrella to other faiths would require legislative, not judicial, action.
Implications for Temple Administration and Labour Rights
The dismissal does not preclude substantive claims by temple workers themselves. Priests and sevadars who feel underpaid may still file individual or representative writ petitions before respective , invoke the , or approach where the has been notified. The liberty granted by the explicitly preserves these avenues.
State governments, particularly those in Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Tamil Nadu, may feel renewed pressure to address wage disparities administratively. already possess rule-making powers to fix pay scales, provide dearness allowance and ensure social-security benefits. The petition’s reference to protests suggests that labour unrest in temple institutions is no longer isolated. A proactive governmental response—perhaps in the form of expert committees at the State level—could pre-empt further litigation.
For legal practitioners, the case serves as a reminder that PILs seeking structural relief in sensitive areas such as religious administration must be meticulously pleaded with concrete data and preferably supported by affidavits from affected persons. Generic prayers for “judicial commissions” without demonstrated urgency or particularised rights violations are increasingly likely to be turned away at the threshold.
Outlook for Similar Litigation
The ’s stance aligns with a broader pattern of judicial restraint in matters involving religious institutions and internal management disputes. Future petitioners may be better advised to channel grievances through the very statutory mechanisms that govern temple endowments in each State. Where minimum-wage violations are demonstrable, writ petitions specifically under labour legislation or through recognised trade unions of temple workers could prove more efficacious.
Ultimately, the dignity and livelihood concerns raised by the petitioner remain live issues. Whether they will be addressed through administrative reform, State-level expert bodies or targeted litigation filed by temple staff themselves will be watched closely by the legal community and by thousands of priests who continue to serve in State-administered temples across the country.
The ’s brief but firm order leaves the door ajar while firmly closing the route for this particular formulation of the dispute.
