Executive Officers Of Temples Forbidden From Interfering In Religious Aspects: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court was considering a writ petition filed in public interest by an activist consistently campaigning for proper administration of temples.
Justice G.R. Swaminathan, Justice V Lakshminarayanan, Madras High Court (Madurai Bench)
While clarifying that the Government or the Commissioner of the HR&CE Department ought not to vest the power of Fit Person in the Executive Officer of the same temple, the Madras High Court has held that the Executive Officer cannot interfere with the religious activities, customary practices and traditions of the temple.
The Judgment of May 29, 2026 was released only recently.
The High Court was considering a writ petition filed in public interest by an activist consistently campaigning for proper administration of the temples in Tamil Nadu.
The Bench comprising Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice V Lakshminarayanan held, “There are quite a few temples whose annual budgets run into several crores of rupees. If there is a multi-member trust board and also a Government official acting as Executive Officer, that would ensure that power is properly exercised. If there is no Trust Board and the Executive Officer is also asked to act as a Fit Person, such state of affairs would not be conducive to a proper administration. We, therefore, hold that the Government or the Commissioner of HR&CE Department ought not to vest the power of Fit Person in the Executive Officer of the same temple. If such a situation is unavoidable, such an arrangement ought to be terminated at the earliest (vide order dated 22.09.2020 in W.P.(MD) 10903 of 2020).”
“An area even slightly tinged with religious elements is a no go zone for the Executive Officer. What is religious activity requires no delienation. Suppose Kumbhabisekam has to be conducted, the date, timings, and the manner of performing the consecration ceremony are purely religious aspects. Anything that has to do directly with worship falls within the realm of religion. We make it clear that the Executive Officer of the temple cannot interfere with the religious activities, customary practices and traditions of the temple”, it added.
Advocate Niranjan Rajagopalan represented the Petitioner while Additional Advocate General P.V. Balasubramaniam represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
Shri Parthasarathy Swamy Temple is an ancient Vaishnavite temple in Chennai. A scheme was framed for the administration of the temple which provided for appointing three trustees; one Brahmin, one Arya Vaishya (Komati) and one neither a Brahmin nor an Arya Vaishya. The trustees were to be elected, and they were supposed to hold office for a period of five years. The membership of the electoral college had also been specified. Subsequently, modifications were made in the scheme by the Deputy Commissioner for HR&CE (Admn.), Chennai. A dispute arose with regard to the temple administration and a suit came to be instituted. An interim injunction was granted restraining the HR&CE Department from appointing any trustee of the temple. It was further directed that the existing Executive Officer should continue to hold office and also act as fit.
The petitioner sought a direction forbearing the respondents from appointing or continuing an Executive Officer appointed under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 or any other Government official or the second respondent's subordinate as “Fit Person” of a temple, religious institutions under its administration including the Sri Parthasarathy Swamy Temple, Triplicane, Chennai.
Submissions
It was the case of the writ petitioner that for the last several decades, the administration of the temple was vested in the Executive Officer appointed by the HR&CE Department. The said Executive Officer also doubled as the fit person. The petitioner contended that the said situation ought not to continue any further.
The Additional Advocate General had stated that the appointment of the Executive Officer was traceable to a judicial order passed in the year 1982 and it could not be faulted. It was his case that the trustees would be appointed for the said temple as expeditiously as possible within a period of six months. A request was also made to close the Petition.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench affirmed the submission of the Additional Advocate General that the continuance of the Executive Officer and the combining of the functions of the Executive Officer-cum-Fit Person in one person was traceable to the order passed by the Division Bench. Considering that only an interim order in an appeal, the Bench stated, “An order passed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC cannot have an independent existence de hors the appeal ; it can survive or can be continued only during the pendency of the appeal. Whether the appeal was disposed of on merits or for default is not really relevant. Once the appeal has been disposed of, the life of the interim order comes to an end.”
The Bench thus held that the temple administration could not continue to be run by the Executive Officer-cum-Fit Person by citing the aforesaid interim order passed by the Division Bench. “We categorically hold that the said interim order ceased to have effect long ago”, it added.
The Bench disposed of the petition by clarifying that the Executive Officer of the temple cannot interfere with the religious activities, customary practices and traditions of the temple and the same has to be necessarily carried out only by persons who are well versed with the customs and traditions of the temple concerned.
Cause Title: T.R.Ramesh v. The State of Tamil Nadu (Case No.: W.P.NO.20764 OF 2026)
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocate Niranjan Rajagopalan, M/s.G.R.A Associates
Respondent: Additional Advocate General P.V. Balasubramaniam, Government Counsel Mohammed Fayaz Ali, Senior Counsel A.K.Sriram, M/s.A.S.Kailasam & Associates