Temple Funds Are Exclusive Contribution of Hindus; Cannot Be Treated As Public Or Govt. Funds: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court observed that the temple funds cannot be treated as public funds or the Government funds as they are exclusive contribution of the Hindu religious people.

The Court quashed the Government Orders granting permission for construction of marriage halls by utilizing the temple funds belonging to five different temples situated in different places.

The Madurai Bench was hearing a batch of Writ Petitions assailing the Government Orders (GOs) issued by the Department of Tourism, Culture and Endowments Department.

A Division Bench comprising Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice G. Arul Murugan held, “Temple funds are collected from and out of the donations offered by the devotees, donors and from immovable properties gifted in favour of the deity/Temple only for religious purposes or to celebrate temple festivals in temples or to utilize the funds for maintenance and development of temple or group of temples as the case may be. Thus, temple funds cannot be treated as public funds or the Government funds. Temple funds are exclusive contribution of the Hindu religious people on account of their emotional or spiritual attachment with the temples or with the deities or with the Hindu religious customs, practices or ideologies etc.”

The Bench was of the view that marriage being a sacred union of two individuals cannot in itself constitute a “religious purpose” and therefore, marriage per se cannot be attached to religious purposes.

Advocate RM. Arun Swaminathan represented the Petitioners while Additional Advocate General (AAG) Veera.Kathiravan, Special Government Pleader (SGP) P. Subbaraj, and Advocate V. Chandra Sekar represented the Respondents.

Facts of the Case

The Minister for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, had announced in the Floor of the Assembly during the Budget Speech that the Government had decided to construct marriage halls in 27 temples by spending the temple funds to the tune of Rs. 80 crores. Arulmigu Kaalakatheeswarar Abirami Amman Temple was one amongst the 27 temples and based on the announcement made in the Floor of the Legislative Assembly, the impugned Government Orders came to be issued.

The counsel for the Petitioners contended that the Government has no jurisdiction to utilize the temple funds or surplus funds for the construction of marriage halls under the provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act and the Rules framed thereunder. It was further argued that the construction of marriage halls are for commercial purposes, as the Government made it clear that the marriage halls proposed to be constructed will be let out to the Hindus for conducting marriage functions.

Court’s Observations

The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel, observed, “… the statutory scheme and the vires of section 66 of the Act, 1959 mirrors the Hindu law principle that surplus funds cannot be diverted for commercial or profit making ventures, but must remain confined to religious or charitable purposes. Therefore what conduces to religious merit in Hindu law is primarily a matter of Shastraic injunction.”

The Court said that though Hindu marriages are primarily considered as a sacrament, it also carries with it elements of contract and so the principles of Hindu marriage as recognised under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has within its ambit elements of a sacred union, which is bound by contractual terms.

“A reading of the Hindu law commentaries makes it clear that the aspect of charity in religious purpose is essential. It nowhere prescribes commercial benefit or financial returns for the acts of ‘religious purposes’ carried out. … .In the present case on hand, the G.O was issued for creation of marriage halls out of the surplus temple funds. The submissions of the respondent clarified that the renting of such marriage halls is not free of charge but is rented out on payment of a fee”, it noted.

The Court added that the essence of charity is nowhere present in the heart of the GO and hence, it loses its footing on this very point itself.

“Hence in the absence of any element of charity (charity being an important facet of hindu religion) involved in this scheme, it cannot be termed as a religious purpose under the tenets of section 66 of the Act”, it held.

The Court remarked that Section 36-A of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 intends to provide assistance for the performance of Hindu marriages among Hindus who are poor or in needy circumstances and thus, the provision does not intend for construction of marriage halls for commercial purposes.

“The scope of the provision cannot be expanded, since the very objective of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act is to ensure that the movable and immovable properties, ornaments, jewels etc., donated by devotees/donors to the temple, must be used by the temple only for religious purposes and not for any other common purposes. The donors/devotees are donating their valuables to the deity in a temple with an intention that their donations are to be utilized only for the benefit of the temple and for religious purposes”, it further said.

The Court was of the opinion that the Government has no powers to utilize the funds for any other purpose other than the purpose for which the valuables are donated by the devotees/donors to the temple.

“The Government under the Act is bound to utilize the temple funds only for the maintenance and development of the temple and for connected religious purposes. They have no authority or powers to divert the funds for any other purposes under the name of the religion which would certainly defeat the very objectives of the Act and Rules and also the wishes of the donors/devotees, who are all donating movable, immovable properties in favour of the deity out of their emotional and spiritual attachment with temples”, it also observed.

The Court enunciated that the construction of a hall for religious purposes adjacent to the temple is permissible, however, there is no provision for construction of the marriage halls for commercial purposes or renting it to Hindus for conducting marriage functions.

“In the event of permitting such marriage halls it will pave way in future for the administrators to misutilize or use the halls for some other purposes other than the religious purposes. This exactly is the reason why lawmakers made in specific that the funds of the temple cannot be utilized for any other purposes other than the religious purposes”, it remarked.

Moreover, the Court noted that the money offered and properties donated to the temple belongs to “deity” and deity becomes the owner of the funds, properties etc.

“Therefore, utilization of temple funds or surplus temple funds for implementing public schemes/projects or construction of marriage halls for commercial purposes by the Government is impermissible under law. Such funds are to be utilized exclusively for religious purposes. “Religious purposes” are well defined under the Hindu Law”, it added.

Conclusion

The Court observed that the Government is secular under the Constitution of India and any attempt by the Government to misutilize the temple funds by way of expanding the interpretation is unacceptable and would result in infringement of the fundamental right of the Hindus to profess their choice of religion.

“It is the duty of the Government to ensure that temple funds are utilized only for religious purposes as intended by the donors/devotees and under the provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder. … Courts have consistently emphasized that temples are not profit-making bodies and that their funds must remain within the statutory purposes outlined in Sections 36, 36-A, 36-B and 66 of the Act, 1959”, it reiterated.

The Court, therefore, concluded that the Government decision for construction of marriage halls for the purpose of renting it out for marriage functions is in violation of the provisions of the Act, 1959 and the Rules and does not fall within the definition of “religious purposes”.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Writ Petitions and quashed the Government Orders.

Cause Title- Rama.Ravikumar v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (Case Number: W.P(MD)Nos.5893, 15498, 17666, 21966 & 21967 of 2025)

Click here to read/download the Order