State Must Enquire Into Allegations Of Maladministration And Illegality In Dealing With Properties Of Denominational Temples: Madras High Court
The Court said that the State, through the HR&CE Department, must investigate property and irregularities in temples, while protecting the institution's religious administration and practices.
Justice S.M. Subramaniam, Justice Mohammed Shaffiq, Madras High Court
The Madras High Court ruled that allegations of maladministration or illegality in dealing with properties belonging to a denominational temple, particularly when that temple receives public contributions/donations, must be enquired into and protected by the State.
The Division Bench of Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq observed, “As far as writ order impugned is concerned, subject lease deed itself is challenged on the ground that it is not a new lease but renewal of lease causing detriment to the interest of the temple's income. That being so, these allegations are to be enquired into and the interest of the institution is to be protected by the State. However, right to administer religious institution and religious practices are to be protected and the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department is not empowered to interfere with the religious practices prevailing in the temple. In respect of dealing with properties and financial irregularities, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department is bound to conduct inspection/enquiry and initiate all appropriate actions by following the procedures and by affording opportunity to all the parties, since contributions/donations are being received from general public.”
Advocate Vineet Subramani for the Appellant and Senior Advocate Babu Joseph Kuruvatazha and Special Government Pleader N.R.R.Arun Natarajan appeared for the Respondents.
Background
The first Respondent filed writ proceedings seeking a direction to the Sub Registrar, Chennai, to register the lease deed. The Writ Court disposed of the writ petition by directing Sub Registrar to register the document within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Appellant submitted that the lease deed was improperly drafted and would cause loss to the sixth Respondent-temple i.e. Sri Prasanna Venkata Narasimma Perumal Temple and the temple is receiving public contribution.
Contention of the Parties
The Appellant submitted that even in a denomination temple, in the event of mal-administration, illegality or irregularity, the State is empowered to interfere and initiate appropriate actions under the provisions of Statutes and Rules in force. It was also submitted several complaints stating that 140 housing properties, 40commercial properties in Saidapet Taluk, Chennai and 100 properties at Solavaram belongs to the 6th respondent/Temple are identified.
Whereas, the Respondent-temple submitted that it is a denominational temple and they have the right to administer. In respect of a denominational temple, the right to administer is conferred under Article 26 of the Constitution of India. Right to administer will not include maladministration, and in the event of any maladministration, the State is empowered to step in and initiate appropriate actions.
Observation of the Court
The Court placed its reliance heavily on the decision of the Apex Court in Marua Dei and Others vs. Muralidhar Nanda and Others (1999), wherein several tests were laid down to ascertain whether the religious institution assumes public character to declare it as a public institution, and the State will have authority to initiate all appropriate actions.
The Court directed, “Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai is directed to appoint an officer not below the rank of Additional Commissioner to conduct a comprehensive inquiry into allegations in respect of properties, financial irregularities raised by the parties and other allegations and initiate all appropriate actions by following the procedures as contemplated and by affording opportunity to all the parties… Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department is directed to examine the facts and status prevailing in the subject temple in the context of the test contemplated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Marua Dei’s case cited supra and initiate appropriate actions. After ascertaining these facts, Commissioner shall proceed against the temple in the manner contemplated under the provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder in the event of any mal-administration, illegality or irregularity.”
Conclusion
Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned order and, hence, allowed the appeal.
Cause Title: Dr. K.J. Renuka v. Dr. K. Raghavendhar Karthik and Ors. [Neutral Citation:2025:MHC:2739]
Appearances:
Appellant: Advocates Vineet Subramani and N.J.Sagayaraj.
Respondents: Senior Advocate V. Raghavachari, Special Government Pleaders N.R.R.Arun Natarajan and U.Baranidharan, Advocates A.Muthukumar, T.G. Balachandran, D.B.R.Prabhu, L. Dhamodharan.