The Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) government on June 19 cancelled administrative sanctions granted for 46 Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department projects worth Rs 245.85 crore, including marriage halls and commercial complexes that were approved under the previous DMK administration.
According to a government order and an official release, sanctions have been withdrawn for 29 marriage hall projects worth Rs 115.77 crore and 17 commercial complex projects worth Rs 130.08 crore. None of these projects had been executed despite receiving approval.
The government cited court-related hurdles and the financial burden on temples as the primary reasons for the cancellation. Officials have indicated that the funds will instead be diverted towards temple-centric schemes benefiting temples, devotees and heritage conservation.
While the decision appears administrative on the surface, it has reopened one of Tamil Nadu’s most enduring political, legal and constitutional debates: Who owns temple funds? How should they be used? And why does the government oversee Hindu temple finances at all?
Why is the decision significant?
The cancellation marks a departure from the previous policy approach.
Under the previous DMK government, the Hindu Religion and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department had supported the creation of revenue-generating assets such as marriage halls and commercial complexes under temple administration. Supporters argued that such facilities would generate income for temples while also providing affordable services to devotees.
The TVK government has adopted a different approach.
Officials say temple resources should be spent on temple-related activities rather than commercial ventures. According to sources in the HR&CE Department, the government believes that available resources should be directed towards the restoration of temples, the preservation of heritage structures, and religious activities and facilities that directly benefit devotees.
The government has also announced that fresh schemes for temples and devotees would be unveiled using the funds released from the cancelled projects.
Why are courts increasingly becoming central to this debate?
The government’s decision did not emerge in isolation.
Over the past two years, courts have repeatedly scrutinised the use of temple funds for commercial purposes and clarified the limits imposed by the HR&CE Act.
In effect, recent court rulings have brought renewed scrutiny to the manner in which surplus temple funds may be utilised.
Madras High Court ban on use of temple funds for shopping complexes
One of the key judicial developments came in January 2025, when the Madras High Court ruled that surplus temple funds could not be used to construct shopping complexes.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy held that surplus temple funds could be utilised only for purposes specifically authorised under Sections 36A, 36B and Section 66 of the Tamil Nadu HR&CE Act, 1959.
The court noted that these provisions permit utilisation of surplus funds for purposes such as:
• Assisting financially weak temples;
• Promotion of Hindu religious tenets;
• Establishment of Vedic and Agama schools;
• Religious education;
• Promotion of fine arts associated with temples;
• Charitable institutions such as orphanages for Hindu children;
• Other statutorily recognised religious and charitable purposes.
The Bench held that shopping complexes do not fall within these categories.
The ruling effectively established an important legal principle: even if a commercial project can generate revenue, it cannot automatically be justified by temple funds unless the law specifically permits it.
Madras High Court strikes down marriage hall projects
A subsequent ruling followed in August 2025. The Madras High Court quashed five government orders authorising the construction of marriage halls using temple funds.
The State argued that Hindu marriages are religious ceremonies and therefore marriage halls facilitate a religious activity.
The court, however, rejected this argument.
A Division Bench of Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice G. Arul Murugan held that:
• The proposed halls were intended to be rented out;
• Renting out halls amounted to a commercial activity;
• Commercial activity could not be equated with a religious purpose merely because weddings take place there;
• Temple funds cannot be treated as public funds or government funds;
• Money donated by devotees belongs legally to the deity and must be protected accordingly.
The Bench observed that devotees offer money, jewellery and property to temples with the expectation that they will be used for temple maintenance, rituals and religious purposes—not for government-driven commercial projects.
The judges also stressed that the statutory safeguards prescribed under the Utilisation of Surplus Funds Rules, 1960 could not be bypassed.
The court also observed: “Temple funds cannot be treated as public funds or government funds.” The judgment has since been cited prominently in debates over the use of temple funds.
Supreme Court reinforces the principle
The issue eventually reached the Supreme Court. While hearing challenges in September 2025, related to temple-funded marriage halls, the Supreme Court questioned the rationale behind such projects. The Bench observed:
“Devotees don’t offer money to temples for setting up marriage halls.”
The court further questioned whether temple properties should be used for activities that may have little connection to worship and religious practice.
The Supreme Court did not merely focus on legality. Its observations reflected a broader concern regarding the expectations of devotees who contribute to temples.
The court’s remarks appeared consistent with the reasoning adopted by the High Court that temple resources cannot automatically be diverted towards commercial infrastructure merely because such projects may generate future income.
If courts oppose shopping complexes and marriage halls, have they opposed all non-religious uses? This is where the issue becomes more nuanced.
Supreme Court declines to interfere with Madras HC order
In August 2025, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with a Madras High Court judgment permitting the lease of temple land belonging to Sri Somanathaswamy Temple in Kolathur to establish a government arts and science college.
The courts viewed the proposal differently because:
• Educational purposes are specifically contemplated under parts of the HR&CE framework;
• The project was not viewed as a purely commercial venture;
• The statutory process had been followed.
This distinction helps explain the differing judicial outcomes. The courts have not held that temple resources can never be used for educational or charitable purposes. Rather, they have emphasised that such utilisation must strictly conform to the purposes authorised under the HR&CE Act.
Why does the Tamil Nadu government control temple administration?
The roots of government involvement in temple administration go back more than two centuries.
Colonial beginnings
The East India Company’s Religious Endowment Regulation of 1817 marked the beginning of state oversight of religious endowments. Following criticism, the British gradually moved away from direct management of religious institutions. However, they continued to regulate secular aspects such as temple lands, finances, and endowments.
Queen Victoria’s Proclamation of 1858 promised non-interference in religious practices while allowing supervision of secular administration.
Justice Party and institutionalisation of state oversight
The modern framework emerged during the Justice Party era.
The Hindu Religious Endowments legislation introduced in the Madras Presidency institutionalised state supervision of temple properties and finances.
The objective was to ensure accountability, prevent mismanagement and protect temple assets.
HR&CE Act, 1959
The present legal framework is governed by the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. The Act empowers the State to regulate the secular administration of temples, including utilisation of surplus funds.
Have Tamil Nadu temples faced financial distress?
Supporters of the TVK government’s decision argue: Tamil Nadu has 34,401 public religious institutions under the HR&CE framework. However, only a tiny fraction generate substantial revenue. Thousands of temples survive on very modest incomes.
Supporters of the previous policy approach argue that the proposed marriage halls and commercial complexes were conceived as revenue-generating assets that could strengthen temple finances over time. They contend that commercial activity and temple welfare need not be mutually exclusive, and that additional income streams could help support maintenance, festivals and other temple-related expenditure.
Historical records, official statements and temple advocacy groups have repeatedly highlighted:
• Encroachment of temple lands;
• Large rent arrears;
• Long-term leases at nominal rates;
• Loss of endowment lands;
• Delayed salaries for priests and staff;
• Difficulty in conducting even daily pujas in smaller temples.
It is these concerns that supporters say justify prioritising temple finances over commercial projects.
What are the main objections raised by BJP and Hindu organisations?
For years, organisations such as Hindu Munnani and several BJP leaders have argued that temple funds should be used exclusively for temple-related purposes. Their objections are based on three broad arguments.
Religious autonomy:
They argue that devotees donate money for religious purposes and that diverting it to secular projects violates the intention behind those donations.
Unequal treatment:
Critics often ask why Hindu temples are extensively regulated by the State while churches and mosques generally manage their own finances through independent religious bodies.
Temple finances should remain within temples:
Many organisations contend that temple resources should first be utilised for:
• Temple maintenance;
• Preservation of heritage structures;
• Religious festivals;
• Support for priests;
• Recovery of temple lands;
• Welfare of devotees.
What is the counter-argument?
Supporters of the traditional HR&CE model present a different historical narrative. They point out that temples in South India historically served broader social functions.
Under the Cholas and Vijayanagara rulers, temples functioned not only as places of worship but also as: centres of education, cultural institutions and providers of charity.
Supporters of using surplus funds for public purposes argue that educational institutions, social welfare schemes and charitable activities continue this historic role.
They also point out that the HR&CE Act specifically permits certain educational and charitable uses of surplus temple funds.
Why is Governor Arlekar’s speech important?
A day before the cancellation order, ON June 18, Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar outlined the government’s broader vision for temple administration during his address to the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly.
He announced:
• Structural reforms in the HR&CE Department;
• Auditing of temple properties and endowments;
• Digitisation of accounts;
• Greater transparency in administration.
He stated: “Administrative malpractices that prevailed in earlier times will be eliminated, and this government will ensure that all movable and immovable assets of the temples are used solely for their sacred purposes.”
How did the previous DMK government justify such projects?
Supporters of the earlier policy argued that:
Many temples possess surplus funds beyond immediate religious requirements.
The HR&CE Act permits certain charitable and educational uses of surplus funds.
Marriage halls near temples provide affordable venues for Hindu weddings.
Commercial complexes can generate recurring income for temples.
Historically, South Indian temples served wider social and community functions, not merely ritual ones.
They contend that regulated commercial assets can strengthen temple finances rather than weaken them.
(T Muruganandham from the Chennai bureau of The New Indian Express contributed to this series).
