Supreme Court refuses to consider plea on minimum wages for priests

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday refused a plea for setting up a judicial commission or an expert committee to review the wages and other benefits given to priests, 'sevadars', and temple staff in state-controlled temples.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said those aggrieved can directly approach the court and the court is not keen on entertaining the plea under Article 32 of the Constitution.

"Those who are aggrieved will take up their own cause," the bench told petitioner advocate Ashwini Upadhyay.

He referred to the 2006 Allahabad High Court judgment, which had stated that, similar to waqf, minimum living wages should be ensured so that priests and sevadars can lead a dignified life.

He cited a judgment by the Madras High Court in connection with the issue raised in the Public Interest Litigation (PIL).

"It was a personal cause in Madras High Court as well as Allahabad High Court," the bench said.

Upadhyay said this is a nationwide issue. He also contended that not a single mosque or church is under government control.

"We have said no seven times. Not anymore," the bench said.

The bench also asked Upadhyay not to get into the affairs of priests, as he may be unaware of the earnings of priests and 'sevadars' of temples.

On a request by Upadhyay, the court allowed him to withdraw the plea with the liberty to avail the remedy available under the law.

The plea, filed through advocate Ashwani Dubey, sought directions to the Centre and states to constitute a judicial commission or an expert committee to review the remuneration and other benefits given to priests and temple staff in state-controlled temples.

The plea also sought a declaration that priests and temple staff are employees under Section 2 of the Code on Wages, 2019.

Once the state assumes the administrative, economic and financial control over temples, an employer-employee relationship arises and denial of dignified wages to priests and temple staff violates the right to livelihood guaranteed under Article 21, the plea claimed.