The Supreme Court on Monday revived a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of laws that regulate the administration of Hindu temples and religious endowments in Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Puducherry [Swami Dayananda Saraswathi Vs State of Tamil Nadu].

A Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma recalled their earlier order from April 2025, which had directed the petitioners to approach the respective High Courts.

The decision to recall the same was taken on review petitions challenging the Court's April 2025 order.

The main petitions, dating back to 2012, were filed challenging provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, the Pondicherry Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1972 and the Telangana Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1987.

The provisions under challenge deal with the powers of Commissioners, appointment of executive officers and trustees, audit of temple accounts, use of surplus funds, alienation of temple property and State supervision over Hindu religious institutions.

The petitioners moved the Court contending that these provisions violate Articles 14 (right to equality), 19 (freedom of profession), 25, 26 and 31A of the Constitution.

Article 25 protects the right to freely profess, practise and propagate religion. Article 26 protects the right of religious denominations to manage their own affairs in matters of religion.

In the lead petition, the petitioners challenged provisions of the Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Puducherry laws. A connected petition also challenged the Telangana Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1987

By its April 2025 order, the Supreme Court did not decide the constitutional challenge on merits.

Instead, it held that the petitioners could approach the respective High Courts since the schemes of the State enactments “may be distinct.” The Bench said the High Courts would be better placed to examine the challenge to the laws applicable in their respective jurisdictions.

The Court had also observed that if such petitions were filed, the High Courts could consider the challenge in light of the socio-economic, cultural, religious and historical aspects of the matter, including earlier judicial verdicts. It also left it open to the High Courts to constitute expert committees for assistance, if required.

The petitioners then filed review petitions against the same.

The same were heard in open court.

In review, the petitioners argued that the April 1 order proceeded on a mistaken assumption that the schemes of the laws may be distinct.

According to them, the Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Puducherry enactments follow a common scheme and have a common origin in the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments laws.

They said the laws contain corresponding provisions on the appointment of executive officers, powers of Commissioners, entry into religious institutions and levy of fees.

The review petition said the matter had been pending before the Supreme Court for 13 years and that sending the petitioners to different High Courts at this stage would cause hardship and multiplicity of proceedings.

It was also argued that Article 32, which allows a person to directly approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights, is itself a fundamental right.

The petitioners further said that earlier Supreme Court orders had directed the petition to be heard finally.

According to the review petition, after pleadings were completed, the matter was directed to be listed for final hearing in January 2016 and later again posted for final hearing on July 13, 2016.

They also relied on earlier litigation concerning temple administration laws.

The review petition stated that provisions of the earlier Madras HR&CE laws had been struck down by the Madras High Court and that the Supreme Court had affirmed that ruling in the Shirur Mutt case.

The petitioners alleged that similar provisions were later reintroduced in subsequent enactments.

The Bench on Monday decided to recall its April 2025 order and hear the challenge to the laws on merits.

The Court will now consider the challenge to State control over Hindu temples in Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Puducherry.

Senior Advocates CS Vaidyanathan and Guru Krishnakumar represented the petitioners with advocates Akshay Nagarajan and Suvidutt Sundaram .

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for Union of India.