State Can't Unilaterally Deploy Temple Funds To Upgrade Temple Without Trustees' Approval: Madras High Court

The bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice C Kumarappan thus set aside a Government Order issued by the State for carrying out civil works in Shri Kallazhagar Temple, Madurai to the tune of 40 crores as part of the state's “Iconic Project” to provide facilities in ancient temples.

“Firstly, the State has no role in envisioning such projects in respect of temples without reference to the temples themselves, meaning the Trustees. It is not for the State to make grandiose announcements relating to deployment of temple funds, that too in the region of Rs.40.00 crores. They have, to put it bluntly, no business to deploy temple funds unilaterally and as part of some ill-conceived operation to upgrade temples,” the bench held.

The bench also noted that there was a meed to professionally manage temple assets through temple trustees who were to be appointed in rotation. The court added that the Trustees, who were to be persons of high standard, were to be assisted by a team of efficient managers with knowledge and interest in Hindu religion.

“Undoubtedly there is need for professional management of the temple assets under the guidance and advice of the Trustees appointed from time to time. The Kallazhagar temple owns, as do many temples in Tamil Nadu, a vast repository of assets including immovable property. The Trustees are undoubtedly expected to be persons of high standard and stature with a keen and deep interest in Hindu religion and spirituality,” the court added.

The court was hearing two writ petitions. One challenging the GO providing for various civil work, construction work etc in the temple. The second plea challenged the work order issued by the Executive Officer of the temple in connection with the work.

The petitioners argued that only trustees of the temple could propose projects for the development of the temple especially when it involved huge amount of money. The petitioners argued that in the present case, there was nothing to show that the temple trustees had applied their mind to the Iconic Project for which 40 crore had been allotted. Arguing that substantial temple funds were being allotted for unnecessary purpose, the petitioner submitted that the very basis for the GO was bad in law.

The petitioners also argued that when the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act required an action to be carried out by specific person in a particular manner, it must be done by that person alone. It was thus argued that the trustees could not delegate or abdicate their function regarding maintenance and upkeep of temples.

The petitioners also argued that the temple finds were not being allocated properly, budgets were not prepared, there was no transparency in sanctioning of projects, and the deployment of funds was not as per the rules or statutes.

The respondents questioned the maintainability of the plea and argued that the petitioner's had failed to show any public interest. The temple submitted that as per the Act, there was no cap on the expenditure that could be made by the temple management on infrastructure.

The State argued that matters involving contract cannot be challenged by public interest litigations. The state also pointed out that tenders had been issued for the work, but none of the successful bidders had been impleaded as parties to the plea. The State thus argued that the plea should be dismissed for non-joinder of parties.

With respect to the objections regarding maintainability of the plea, the court noted that there was a fiduciary responsibility cast upon the State, the trustees as well as the devotees in safeguarding the interests of a temple particularly, the deployment of temple funds. The court added that this responsibility also falls on the court when there are allegations of improper administration, defalcation of duties or negligence in handling of funds.

The court also observed that it exercised parens patriae jurisdiction in safeguarding the properties of diety and temple. The court thus held that the petitions were maintainable.

The court further noted that as per the relevant statute and rules, there should a disclosure with respect to the deployment of funds in the budget that was to be prepared by the Executive Officer. In the present case, the court noted that there was nothing in the budget. The court thus concluded that the utilisation of funds constituted illegal appropriation and diversion.

The court also noted that there was a lack of clarity on how the audit was being conducted. The court also criticised the manner in which the temple was being managed by an Executive Officer for a long period, instead of a Board of Trustees as contemplated under the Act.

The court thus directed the authorities to take immediate measures for constituting new board of trustees and make necessary amendments to the management of the temple.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. M. R. Venkatesan for Mr.RM.Arun Swaminathan, Mr. S. G. Vadiraj Anirudh

Counsel for Respondents: Mr.P.S.Raman. Advocate General Assisted by Mr.J.Ashok Additional Government Pleader, Mr.A.K.Sriram Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Manohar, Mr.Rangarajan Narasimhan (Party-in-person)

Case Title: A.V.B.Prabhu v. The Secretary to Government and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 51

Case No: W.P.(MD) Nos.23501 & 22596 of 2025