A recent Himachal Pradesh High Court ruling is the latest that seeks to define state control over temples. In Karnataka, the government in 2024 passed a bill to pool 10% of income from temples earning over Rs 1 crore. In Pic, A rathotsava at Kukke Subrahmanya Temple, Dakshina Kannada.
Credit: DH File Photo
The recent judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Kashmir Chand Shadyal v. State of Himachal Pradesh said that diverting temple funds to welfare schemes of the government is impermissible. The court explained that the devotees expect that their donations will be utilised for the upkeep of the deities and the promotion of Sanatana Dharma. It further observed that appropriation of these offerings by the government would amount to betrayal of the trust reposed by the devotees. The court’s view reflects a theocratic perspective on the topic rather than a constitutional one.
The judgment makes for an interesting read. It elaborates on the universal virtues of Hindu religion, highlighting its finer traits and inclusive characteristics through references to scholars and judicial precedents. It also praises the role the temples played in ancient India. Curiously, the judgment goes on to commend Vinayak Savarkar and Dr K B Hedgewar, placing them on par with reformers like Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Guru Nanak, the Buddha, Basaveshwara and Dr B R Ambedkar. The court further said that “in an era of rapid social change and evolving spiritual needs, Hindu temples have the potential to reclaim their historical dynamism and become powerful catalysts for the transformation of modern Hindu society”.
The Hindu Public Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1984 is the State law governing the subject in Himachal Pradesh. Section 17 of the Act permits spending of the income for propagation of Hindu religion or faith, for educational establishments and for training disciples of Hinduism. The statute, on the face of it, does not allow the use of temple funds for welfare schemes, as a matter of right. Yet, it does not expressly prevent the government from making such a request either, provided the temple trustees are willing. It is doubtful, given the universal nature of Hinduism and its non-discriminatory spirit which the judgment has tried to project, whether a rigid division between public welfare and religious purpose can hold during critical times, especially in a Hindu majority society.
The judgment ends with certain dos and don’ts. It lists 31 areas where the temple funds could be utilised and eight areas where their use is prohibited. This is clearly something that the statute has not explicitly enumerated. The verdict thereby amounts to a judicial addition. Pertinently, the court has prohibited the use of temple funds to support religious events held for “interfaith, social or political programmes” as well.
The sharp division of the society on religious lines as hinted in the judgment is dispiriting and negates the constitutional idea of fraternity. When charity and universal love are the hallmarks of this great religion, as rightly underlined by the court, total prohibition on utilising devotees’ contributions for “government welfare schemes” would remain a contentious issue. If this dichotomy is traceable to the enactment, the government could have contemplated a legislative amendment.
However, an amendment would be required only to mandate a diversion of temple funds, and not to enable a voluntary contribution for the common good.
There are similar statutes on establishment and management of Hindu religious endowments in different states. They prescribe different methods for managing the endowments. Normally, the courts are not expected to expand or reduce the scope of these prescriptions. The problem with the Himachal Pradesh judgment is that it is rendered in a vacuum, without being prompted by any instance of a statutory breach. The judgment does not indicate any clear cause of action for the high court’s intervention and does not explain, in concrete terms, how the state’s action amounted to a violation of section 17 of the Act.
Public by nature
The public character of temples, even those that were previously private entities, cannot be lost sight of. They are built by the people, not by the kings, as is commonly believed. This is qualitatively different from the private properties of sematic religions, sometimes funded from abroad. This is the rationale behind the State regulating the administration of such temples, without, however, interfering with the religious rights of the devotees. Even in the case of wakf properties, the government has considered it appropriate to regulate their management, as reflected in the recent amendment to the Wakf Act.
A deity is a legal person recognised by law. Yet, the temple properties will have to be managed responsibly and transparently, with a high degree of accountability. This could be done only by a method prescribed by law. This in turn legitimises the State’s control over traditional religious establishments.
Let us consider the context. The Congress government in Himachal Pradesh had decided to request temple trusts in the state to contribute to welfare schemes for vulnerable children. The judgment, while extolling the magnanimity of Hinduism, prohibits even the willing temple trusts from supporting the government’s welfare schemes. This paradox is not merely legal or technical; it is essentially jurisprudential. A secular or constitutional view on the issue is bound to be generous, egalitarian, compassionate and inclusive, qualities which the high court’s judgment, unfortunately, lacks.
A major opposition to the State government’s request came from the BJP. The opposition party in the state said that the move was an attempt to “drain temple funds” to rescue the government from its financial crisis. The judgment, by imposing a judicial ban even on a request for assistance in difficult times, interferes with both the functional autonomy of the temple trustees and the political autonomy of an elected government.
A common pool
According to data, 95.2% of the population in Himachal Pradesh are Hindus. All other religions together constitute less than 5% of the population. If the temple funds are used for the welfare of the people, it precisely means using people’s money for people’s welfare. Now, the state will have to amend the law, enabling voluntary contribution by the temples towards a common pool for welfare of the public.
A move on these lines was undertaken in Karnataka, where the legislature passed The Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments (Amendment) Bill in March 2024. According to the bill, 10% of the gross income of the temples whose gross annual income exceeds Rs 1 crore will be put in a common pool. The Bill also mentioned that 5% of the gross income of temples whose annual income is between Rs 10 lakh and Rs 1 crore will be used for the pool. The BJP strongly opposed the legislative move. Yet, the Bill was passed. The Karnataka governor has reserved the bill for Presidential assent.
A democratic, inclusive and humanistic relation between the State and religious institutions is essential for secular India. In Kerala, most of the public temples are managed by Devaswom Boards, which function under political control, though with several statutory riders. The government has also extended financial support to Devaswom Boards during critical times.
In Madhya Pradesh, despite the BJP government’s promise “to free Hindu temples from government control”, it remains an unfinished task due to practical challenges. In other states like Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh the state control over public temples has helped prevent mismanagement by individuals. Over time, Indian states have largely succeeded in striking a fine balance between public interest and religious autonomy. The challenge now is to preserve this symbiotic relationship nationwide by upholding the secular and republican spirit of our democracy, which encompasses religious freedom.
Dr B R Ambedkar famously said that, like the path to heaven, the path to social reforms in India is strewn with hurdles. The judgment, instead of reducing such hurdles, only multiplies them.
(Kaleeswaram Raj is a lawyer in the Supreme Court of India)