Temple Governance in India

Created by Academy of Civil Services in Indian Polity 3 Nov 2024

Ancient Patronage: Temples served as cultural and economic centres, often funded by kings and wealthy patrons who donated land and resources, establishing them as significant societal institutions.
Colonial Interference: The British colonial government viewed temples as sites of wealth and influence, enacting laws between 1810 and 1817 to gain oversight and control over their administration.
Religious Endowments Act of 1863: This act addressed corruption and misappropriation of temple funds by transferring management from local leaders to government-appointed committees.
Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act of 1925: Formalised government oversight of temples in southern India, allowing for extensive regulation and control over temple finances and administration.
Post-Independence Continuity: Independent India retained much of the legislative framework established during colonial rule, with various states enacting similar laws to maintain control over temples.
Social Integration Argument: It was argued that oversight was necessary to ensure inclusivity in temple access & management and promote social harmony among different castes and community groups.

State Control: Many Hindu temples are managed by state governments, which have enacted laws to regulate temple administration and finances.
Dedicated Departments: States like Tamil Nadu have established specific departments, such as the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, to oversee temple operations.
Government-Appointed Boards: Temples are often governed by boards or trusts that include government representatives or officials, giving the state significant influence over decision-making.
Revenue Sharing: State governments typically share temple income from offerings and donations, using the funds for temple maintenance and various welfare activities.
Legal Framework: Temple governance is guided by laws rooted in colonial legislation, with provisions for oversight and regulation under the Concurrent List of the Constitution.

Historical Resolutions: Hindu organisations have advocated for restoring temple control to local communities since 1959, emphasising grassroots governance.
Political Advocacy: Hindutva groups have increasingly called for legislative changes to free temples from government oversight, framing it as a restoration of cultural heritage.
Protests and Campaigns: Throughout the years, various protests led by religious leaders and local communities have highlighted grievances against government control and advocated for autonomy.
Recent Legislative Attempts: Some state governments have initiated or withdrawn laws to loosen state control over temples in response to public pressure.
Public Sentiment: Growing public sentiment against perceived government overreach in temple management has fueled calls for reforms, with many arguing for upholding religious freedoms.
Tirupati Controversy as a Catalyst: The recent controversy surrounding the Tirupati laddoo has intensified demands for temple autonomy. Hindutva organisations use it as a rallying point to argue that government control undermines religious significance and local traditions.

Reluctant Intervention: Courts typically avoid interfering in temple management, upholding laws that permit state regulation.
Fundamental Rights: The SC acknowledges religious denominations’ fundamental right to manage their affairs, subject to reasonable state regulation.
Public Welfare Justification: Courts often justify state oversight by citing concerns about mismanagement and corruption, emphasising the need for regulation in the public interest.
Status Quo Maintenance: Recent rulings have supported existing government control, suggesting it helps temples serve broader societal needs.
Key Case Precedents: Cases like the Shirur Mutt case established that laws removing management rights from religious groups can violate Article 26 of the Constitution.