State Regulation of Hindu Temples – A legal perspective on balancing religious freedom and public interest

Abstract 

The State regulation of Hindu temples has sparked a nationwide debate regarding balancing religious freedom, public interests, autonomy, financial transparency, and the preservation of spiritual and cultural heritage. A number of cases, public debates, and legislative proposals are in progress to enhance temple autonomy, create systems of accountability, and enhance their role in local socioeconomic development. This paper seeks to offer in-depth research on the governance model for temples that ensures autonomy and accountability, resolving the long-standing problem of state control and making a major contribution to the policy debate on the sustainable management of Hindu temples in India. Overall, this paper identifies gaps in the existing governance model that supports temple autonomy in terms of institutional integrity and minimizing state interference and stresses to establish the boundaries for a healthy relationship between temples and the state with a focus on regulation rather than control. 

Keywords: Hindu Temples, HR&CE, State Interference

1. Overview of Hindu Religious Institutions: Temples and Mutts

Religious institutions have played a major role in shaping India’s cultural and social fabric by carrying out a number of tenets, such as acting as places of worship, dispensing knowledge through religious discourses, conducting scholarly research on ancient texts, promoting tourism, and engaging in a wide range of social and cultural activities. These organisations are also in charge of social welfare agencies, educational institutions, and other charity endeavours. Temples and Mutts are the two primary categories into which Hindu religious institutions fall. While mutts are primarily concerned with teaching religious and spiritual education, temples are devoted to worship.

2. Functions and Significance of Temples in Hinduism

Temples hold substantial tracts of land, jewellery, and financial resources thanks to generous endowments from previous kings and society, making them strong economic organisations. In additional to religious obligations, the temples also had functions of overseeing educational establishments that were established by donations or endowments. The Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams Trust (TTD), runs several schools, colleges, and even medical facilities throughout the nation. The Hindu High School, the first of their educational establishments, was established in Vellore as early as 1876. Additionally, temples create jobs through their social and charitable activities. Temples have also promoted agriculture, horticulture, and irrigation on a scale similar to that of the state. Tanks, wells, and irrigation systems were frequently found in temples to support the local agricultural economy. Free food distribution was one of the most well-known charitable activities, and it is being done in many temples today. Temples also engage in other philanthropic endeavours, including medical assistance, education for underprivileged populations, scholarships, and even volunteer opportunities.

3. Relationship between Temple and State 

Temples were essential component of the State’s operations and were connected to the political power structure since puranic era. “Rajadharma,” or the Royal Ethical Responsibility is regarded as a fundamental component of the Hindu Dharmic (ethical) heritage that involved royal endowments to temple community. These endowments were used by the temples to support community welfare and the conduct of temple services. Centuries later, the British Government passed three laws, one for each of the Presidency territories of Bengal, Madras, and Bombay, between 1810 and 1817, to assert its sovereign authority on religious establishments. These regulations enabled the British government to claim that active supervision was required because the people in charge of the religious institutions were misusing and stealing endowment funds. The Government of India Act of 1919 created a new paradigm by enabling the provincial governments to legislate on matters of endowments. Following this, the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act of 1925 which was the first enactment that related purely to Hindu religious endowments was passed. This act further served as a blueprint for post-independence Indian enactments, in Madras as well as in other states such as Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Rajasthan and others.

4. Legal Framework Governing Temples in India

Unlike US model of secularism that advocates strict wall of separation between state and religion, the Indian model of secularism is however, rejects the strict wall doctrine and instead looks at maintaining a ‘principled distance’ between the religion and state (Bhargava 2004). The Indian Constitution has several provisions that touch upon religion and culture. The key doctrines related to this discussion are 

“Article 25. Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion – 

1. Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion

 2. Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law

 a. regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice;

 b. 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 

Article 26. Freedom to manage religious affairs – Subject to public order, morality and health, every religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right

 a) to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes; b) to manage its own affairs in matters of religion;

 c) to own and acquire movable and immovable property; and 

d) to administer such property in accordance with law 

Article 25(2) discusses instances where the State may actually step in and enact laws or regulations, even though Article 25(1) guarantees religious freedom. By combining the right to freedom of religion with the authority to interfere in matters of faith, this approach to religious freedom deviates significantly from the US definition of secularism. The activities of religious organisations and activities related to religious practices are effectively separated into two groups by Article 25(2)- religious activities and related secular activities.” The state has the authority to step in on the latter category. However, the Constitution does not specify how to differentiate between the two, therefore in addition to the executive branch’s actions, the courts have been entrusted to decide them upon case-by-case basis. 

5. The Role of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE)

Tamil Nadu passed the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act of 1951, which was the first law of its kind to govern Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments in post-independence India. Bihar introduced a similar law around the same period. A public executive commission known as the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE), chaired by a commissioner, was established by the Acts to oversee the secular aspects of temples and mutts. The key functions of this commission include 

1. Examination of Hindu religious endowments and classification of public religious endowments 
2. Inquiry into management and resource utilization of Hindu public religious institutions
3. Inquiry into manner of appointment and office holders in relation to Hindu public religious endowments 
4. To suggest ways and means to improve the manner in which holders of such offices are being chosen 
5. Inquire into and report on any other matter relevant to the above

In addition, the framework also outlines the Trustees’ qualifications, disqualifications, roles, responsibilities, and authority. Therefore, the government through commissioners may appoint or remove them in accordance with certain Acts-provided instances. It is evident that once a state appoints an executive officer for a temple, its control is extensive and highly intrusive, intervening in their day today functions, appointments, financial and property management, and other areas. As a result, the Hindu religious institutions have become more bureaucratic and politicised. Though the intention of these legislative frameworks is to reduce mismanagement of the funds and scrutinise their utilisation for which they are endowed, they are now endowed with their own inefficiencies, il-interests and corruption. 

6. Case Study: HR&CE Regulations in Tamil Nadu

Today, the HR&CE department in Tamil Nadu is in charge of managing more than 44,000 religious organisations and charity endowments, including 309 Holy Mutts and 41,746 Temples. According to Section 46 of the Tamil Nadu HR&CE Act, the Commissioner of the Department is responsible for classifying and creating lists based on the yearly revenue of different religious institutions. Based on this, It is classified that

• “5,038 temples have an annual income of Rs.10,000 and less than Rs.2 lakh
• 938 temples have an annual income of Rs.2 lakh and less than Rs.10 lakh 
• 36,154 temples have an annual income of less than Rs.10,000“

This provides an interesting view that less than 5% of total religious institutions, earn more than Rs.10 lakh per annum. This also provides a view that the focus temples are mainly 331 temples earning above Rs. 10 lakhs per annum, and within that there are only 47 temples earning more than Rs.50 lakhs. This provides three important questions to think about 

1. Is this kind of strict bureaucratic hierarchy is necessary to monitor just 47 temples? 
2. What are the reasons that the State took over such modest village or neighbourhood temples that are earning less than 10000 Rs annually? 
3. Are enough measures taken to increase the revenues of these 95% of the temples whose annual revenue is less than 10000 Rs.

It begs the question of why there is such a complex framework in place to handle these microcosmic organisations via centralised remote control. These microcosmic temples are better off being run independently than through intricate bureaucratic procedures

Another aspect that this report would like to highlight is the financial spending involved in running of this state-controlled framework. The annual expenditure of the Dept of HR&CE is over ₹278 crores for its activities and expenditure for the Financial Year 2020-21. It was shocking to note that the costs of the executive officers, audit staff and district staff are ₹23 crore, ₹19 crore and ₹44 crore, respectively, each individually higher than the entire amounts dedicated to social security and welfare programmes (₹20 lakh) and upkeep of shrines (₹3 Crore). The maximum share of the expenditure goes into the administration of the department instead of spending on the social and welfare activities of these religious institutions. 

7. Role of judiciary in regulating the State interference of Hindu Religious Institutions

The original goal of these legislative frameworks on Hindu religious institutions was to improve management and guard against financial mismanagement. However, over time, the position evolved from regulatory and policy-making to micromanagement and oversight in religious affairs of these institutions including intervening ethos underlying worship and rituals. 

In the landmark Shirur Mutt Case, the Supreme Court struck down several provisions of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act of 1951, including 

1. “Section 21 of the Act empowered the Commissioner and subordinate officers with the power of entry into the premises of any religious institution that interfered with the fundamental rights of the Mathadipati and the religious denomination. 
2. Section 30(2) provided that after applying funds to the purposes mentioned in the Act, the Trustee may incur further expenditure from the funds for certain purposes beneficial to the institution, under the guidance of the Commissioner or Area Committees that was an unreasonable restriction 
3. Section 56 provided that the Commissioner may require a trustee to appoint a manager for administration of secular affairs of the institution, and upon failure of the trustee to do so, may appoint such manager himself, this was violative of the Fundamental Rights 
4. Sections 63-69, which dealt with notification of religious institutions that are “extremely drastic, in their character” and no court remedy was provided.”

In 2014, in the Chidambaram Case , the Supreme Court while dealing with the appointment of an Executive Officer to the Chidambaram Temple stated, “Even if the management of a temple is taken over to remedy the evil, the management must be handed over to the person concerned immediately after the evil stands remedied. Continuation thereafter would tantamount to usurpation of their proprietary rights or violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution in favour of the persons deprived. Therefore, taking over of the management in such circumstances must be for a limited period.” Even as recently as 2019, while hearing a case regarding issues at the Jagannath Temple in Odisha, the Supreme Court questioned why government officers should be running temples, particularly on the face of ensuing inefficiencies . 

8. Future Directions for Temple Governance and Regulation

 Prior to British intervention, the nation and society enjoyed a rich economic and cultural legacy, which is symbolised by temples, which are a testament to past economic and cultural progress. Some recommendations to provide a balanced view in terms of control of State in Hindu religious institutions includes 

1. In actions pertaining to the administrative (secular) and spiritual (religious) domains, there need to be a distinct division of authority. From the state level Board to the grassroots temple level, this division must be preserved. Instead of administrative staff, independent members of the community, religiously inclined individuals, and experts in related subjects should supervise the spiritual activities. It is necessary to keep a glass wall between the administrative and spiritual realms. The administration’s function will be less regulatory and supervisory and more facilitating and assisting. 
2. The 90% of smaller temples that has an annual income less than 10000 Rs, government can give the trustees the option of managing themselves with support from devotees in the village or neighbourhood. It can be on the model of Public – Public Partnership model.
3. Although underutilised, the temples have enormous potential for resource development. It should be noted, however, that governments shouldn’t view temples as a source of funding. If it raises money by temples, it needs to be reinvested in temple-related projects like township development and tourism. This will avoid the current scenario where 90% of the revenue generated through this framework is utilised in the administrative expenses. 

Bibliography

1. Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD). “Educational Institutions.” (n.d.). Retrieved January 8, 2020, from https://www.tirumala.org/EducationalTrust.aspx.
2. Talbot, C. “Temples, Donors, and Gifts: Patterns of Patronage in Thirteenth-Century South India.” The Journal of Asian Studies 50, no. 2 (May 1991): 308-340.
3. Rao, N. “Royal Religious Beneficence in Pre-Modern India: Social and Political Implications.” International Journal of Dharma Studies 4, no. 7 (July 19, 2016).
4. Hindu Religious Endowments Commission. Report of the Hindu Religious Endowments Commission (1962).
5. TN HR&CE Dept. (2019).
6. G. Ramesh. Governance and Management of Temples: A Framework, IIMB-WP No. 621/2020, Indian Institute of Management Bangalore.
7. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, AIR 1954 SC 282.
8. Swamy, S. “Freeing Temples from State Control.” The Hindu, January 20, 2014. Retrieved January 10, 2020, from https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/freeing-temples-from-state-control/article5594132.ece.
9. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, AIR 1954 SC 282.
10. Swamy, S. “Freeing Temples from State Control.” The Hindu, January 20, 2014. Retrieved January 10, 2020, from https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/freeing-temples-from-state-control/article5594132.ece.

Details of the Author 

Sriharini Chellappan,
LLB, IFIM Law School, Banglore