How India’s temples are run

Sub :Polity

Sec: Constitution

Context:

Supreme Court hears petitions seeking a court-monitored probe into the alleged adulteration of the ghee in Lord Venkateswara’s laddu prasadam, Hindu organisations have revived their demand to free temples from government control.

Current situation:

Many Hindu, Sikh, Jain, and Buddhist places of worship are under government control.
- Hindu temples form the majority of the around 30 lakh places of worship in India (2011 census).
Muslims and Christians manage their own religious institutions.
Several states have laws giving the government power to administer temples, their incomes, and expenditures.
- Temples in Tamil Nadu are managed by the state’s Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) department.
- The AP govemment controls and appoints the head of the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD), which runs the Tirupati Temple.
- The erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir enacted The Jammu and Kashmir Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Act, 1988, to manage, specifically, the Vaishno Devi Mata Shrine in Katra, Jammu.

Historical Context:

The construction of monumental temples dates back to the Mauryan period (321-185 BCE).
Government control dates back to the colonial era when the British enacted laws to interfere in temple administration.
- In 1863, the British enacted the Religious Endowments Act, which handed over control of temples to committees set up under the Act.
Post-independence, states enacted their own laws, the first of which was the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1951.

Constitutional Basis:

Article 25(2) of the Constitution allows the government to regulate religious practices and institutions.
- Article 25 (2) states that a government can make laws “regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice”, and “providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus”.
Religious endowments are on the Concurrent List (List III), allowing both Centre and states to legislate.

Legal Positions:

Courts have generally upheld the state’s right to regulate religious institutions.
Key cases include the 1954 Shirur Mutt case and the 1996 Pannalal Bansilal Pitti case.

Shirur Mutt case (1954):

Established that laws completely removing administrative rights from religious denominations violate Article 26(d) of the Constitution.
However, it also affirmed the state’s general right to regulate the administration of religious or charitable institutions.
This case set a precedent for balancing religious autonomy with state oversight.

Ratilal Panachand Gandhi vs. The State of Bombay (1954):

Reaffirmed that the right of religious bodies to manage their affairs is a fundamental right.
Clarified that while this right cannot be taken away entirely, the state can regulate the administration of trust properties through valid laws.
This ruling further defined the limits of state intervention in religious affairs.

Pannalal Bansilal Pitti vs State Of Andhra Pradesh (1996):

Upheld a law abolishing hereditary rights over the chairmanship of trusts administering Hindu religious institutions.
Rejected the argument that laws regulating religious institutions must apply uniformly to all religions.
This decision allowed for religion-specific regulations, recognizing that different religious communities may require different approaches.